In post 339, KayP wrote:What, exactly, did you like about Shaddox’s post?
I said I'll tell when I'm back from phone posting tonight.
In post 339, KayP wrote:What, exactly, did you like about Shaddox’s post?
In post 294, Shadoxx8 wrote:@Bellaphant, your playing extremely pro-town at this point. All of your posts have been in-depth and contributive to the town. You have performed exactly as a post-card townie (gods help us if you are Mafia-alignment.). Your playing very similar to a player in my last game, Glitch, who not only was VT, but also provided posts with lots of detail and criticism of all players, rather than focussing on one player (what I call tunnel-visioning, which I can do a lot of the time, something I’m trying to rectify). You also have acted skeptical at some points, and questions peoples votes (if not in RVS).
@Bob I say your playing town-to-null at this point. It is hard to place a player into either player (except if they have very striking play). You are not as much of a town read as Bella, because her posts have more detail IMO. However, you haven’t actively followed a bandwagon AFAIK.
@Bob#2 It may just be your play-style, but your play style isn’t being very pro-town at this point. The inclusion of pictures and filler in posts is fine, but what is questionable is your liking for joining bandwagons and overall complying with the flow. A lot of your posts have also been incredibly short, providing not much detail. IGMEOY
@Glork. I’m not sure what to think about you. On one hand, some of your posts are rather good, but you also immediately jump to scum-team conclusion on D1. This suggests that you are anxious to end the day on a vote, as the town should only start systematically scanning for scum-tells, not pairing town players together on D1. IGMEOY.
@KayPIn post 47, KayP wrote:Oh, sure, the goal is to find mafia. I agree there, that much is obvious. But given statistics, the person you are pushing/voting/arguing with is MORE LIKELY to be town than mafia since there are way more town than mafia in games. I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to be STARTING from a mindset of "this person is mafia, prove me otherwise" instead of "this person is statistically likely to be town, unless proven otherwise".
Your point here is what? Maybe I’m missing the context of this post (viewing these in ISO BTW) but what you are essentially saying is that we shouldn’t vote for people because they are likely to be town? The point of the game is to vote and find the Mafia, before they lynch all town members. This statement directly contradicts the purpose of Mafia! You are pushing for us to vote random people, which is directly in the Mafia’s favour!
In post 134, KayP wrote:What is wrong with people on this site and making reasonless votes?
There is something called RVS.
I think that KayP is currently the most scummy player. However, I do not think he is Mafia. He’s the best vote for us IMO, but with Ducks at L-1. I’m unsure whether I’ll swap over on D1.
@Kitty. Whilst you haven’t contributed much yet, you have provided a valid reason for your inactivity, so I have to place you in null for now (hate doing that )
@TellTaleHeart. Ooh yes, I like your play style. Like Bella, you are question and scrutinising everybody, and not joining bandwagons for the sake of it like some other players. You are correct about my previous post, it was a rant more than anything, not a reason for voting Ducks. You are definitely the second highest town-read for the town.
@Bulge Why the lack of posts? This early on, inactiveness must always regarded as suspicious, unless it is justified. Here, you either are simply one of those players who does not care about the game, or wants to remain in the shadows, and simply complying with what the town wants. Scum-tell right here. But not Mafia read as again, it’s only D1.
In post 356, Fro99er wrote:Anyway, I don't know where I stand on KayP. She questioned me well on my Ducky vote, even up to the point of disproving my assumption of Ducky's lack of content. That felt towny KayP. But I can't help but agree with Shadoxx that the mindset of "assume everyone is town" instead of "try to find scum" is weird and backward. That's a mafia mindset, IMO. I still need to sort KayP.
In post 358, KayP wrote:In post 356, Fro99er wrote:Anyway, I don't know where I stand on KayP. She questioned me well on my Ducky vote, even up to the point of disproving my assumption of Ducky's lack of content. That felt towny KayP. But I can't help but agree with Shadoxx that the mindset of "assume everyone is town" instead of "try to find scum" is weird and backward. That's a mafia mindset, IMO. I still need to sort KayP.
Ugh. Wtf is this. Perhaps you should stick to statistics and leave logic to the rest of us?
In no way, shape, or form is "assume everyone is town" mutually exclusive to "try to find scum". Both of those can coexist together! You see, that's not why I said you should assume everyone is town.
In post 47, KayP wrote:I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to be STARTING from a mindset of "this person is mafia, prove me otherwise" instead of "this person is statistically likely to be town, unless proven otherwise".
I was saying that asking someone to prove their innocence is placing the burden of proof on the incorrect party. It's more likely the person you're attacking is town than scum... and therefore, you should have reasons why they are scum. You, Froggy, were saying that ducks should have to have her innocence proven, rather than you proving why she is mafia. THAT is why I brought up the "everyone is more likely to be town" bit, and in no way, shape, or form did I imply that you should not attempt to find scum.
This is totally disingenuous.
In post 233, KayP wrote:In post 213, Fro99er wrote:My point was, if people don't push on Shadoxx (or Kitty), we're just going to let them sit there and do fuck all in a quick game. It's one thing to go V/LA or just completely flake. It's another thing to be active elsewhere yet not post in this thread.
Oh, we are allowed to mention this? I thought we couldn't mention this because of ongoing games rules... if that's the case, then I noticed ducks avoiding this thread specifically while posting heavily in other games. It was specifically around the 4-5 page mark of this thread, while ducks was a very heavy center of discussion between myself, Frogger, and Glork. In fact, she was posting elsewhere, and didn't come back until after Fro99er backed down and then Glork attacked me. It looks very suspicious that ducks was observably active on the forum but avoided this thread until the heat on her had died down.