I already answered this in 438 that I wanted to know what took them out of the lynch pool for some people, if we don't pressure them they never do anything. At no point did I say to lynch them, I just don't enjoy people getting free passes. How long do you give them. I have had far too many games where low posting scum win because left alone for reasons like this. You cant get info from silence, and people who defend them sometimes are scum teammates. This is perhaps a site culture issue as well. In my view day ones which are a lot shorter on my site you either take a chance on a inactive or lynch for info if no one has become obv. Here we have a lot more time so both clearly don't work, since you can work people out more and take less blind shots. Its not a disconnect its just having two different views at the same time either though both are vastly different but can work in own way. It all depends on the situation
And I keep laying out why this doesn't make sense. I did not say you want them lynched. I did not say don't pressure them. I'm saying that it's obvious that in POE pool you're not going to include people who's lynches actively wont help town at this point in time. If you grasp lynching someone for info based on their activity it doesn't make sense to me that you don't grasp that lynching a blank slate currently gets us nothing.
I don't think it is obvious that you don't include inactives. If they're posting enough to not get replaced, but you'll need to cull them eventually, D1 is the optimal time to do so. I'm certainly pro-inactive lynch in games where I don't have strong scumleads.
Furthermore it makes total sense to me why eyebrows would get raised at nobody expressing pro-inactive lynch views and a lack of pressure votes on them early. Even if one is pro-information, it's weird if nobody is on the other side.
I'd argue that the lack of pressure towards inactives is actually indicative of one having rolled Scum here and a good reason to
Actually though, is there something specific bothering you? I don’t accept you hand waving all of my posts as nothing, or how it’s even relevant.
I said what was bothering me. I am not hand waving your posts away, I just see them as fluff posting without actually attempting to game solve. If the day were to end in 5 minutes, I am voting who I want gone right now.
As far as how its relevant. The entire point of this game is to solve or try to look like your solving. I don't feel like you are solving. You received my vote. I haven't played in a while, but I think that's what you are supposed to do?
Days since I’ve been told I’m both fluffing too much and not enough: 0
You are applying irrelevant meta to me, and I will ignore it accordingly.
Would you like to do something productive with me? Make something beautiful together? I’m open to suggestions.
How is this "irrelevant meta"? Not saying I agree or disagree with the assertion that you're posting and not being solve-y, but that's a pretty good indicator of Scum in general. That's not meta against you, that's just what Scum often do because they have TMI to solve.
What does being his cellmate have to do with his alignment?
Last few posts, every time I saw a vaimes post, it just felt like he was talking but nothing relevent was being said. I don't remember being super impressed with him either on my last few skims either.
It makes knowledge of his alignment more valuable to me because of the game mechanics?
No, it's definitely not the case. I don't think Jack's hedging a problem and I struggle to see a world where #172 is a Scum post. Hedging on major wagons, or on cases you're spearheading is scummy, sure... but Jack's not doing that.
What actually seems more likely to you:
Jack decided he wanted to keep his options open, but made a wall anyway, so he had to sprinkle in 9 hedges in order to keep flexible on all 14 other players, none of whom had major wagons.
Jack is Town and it's a stream-of-consciousness post so you're catching him reconsidering everything as he writes it.
There's a huge difference between posting stances that you walk back in the same post (Jack) vs posting, but not posting anything game impacting (you up until your vote on last page)
Ah. Damnit, sorry, misunderstood what the original posts and the 'Doop' thing meant earlier.
@Last: Doesn't really matter, I wanted the opinion of someone who's played with him. But I'm essentially asking if you find the thought progression believable and if anything jumps out.
@Flarg
Weeeell, many years ago, before the youths found Tik Tok and stream TV was more of a bonus than the replacement to cable, and homes had a landline to connect to the internet with, there was a young mafia lad named Snowvon. He's since changed to Vaimes...I'm just bad at remembering that.
The posts in question are #52 and #63.
I gotta admit, your claim confusion about "endgaming" in #61 is strange enough to me that I actually believe it (I honestly never had anyone use the term in any other way than Von did)
You've never seen "soandso was endgamed!" as a cause of death when Town loses? Or like, a player talk about not wanting to live for a long time just to get endgamed? Much be a regional dialect I guess (#utica).
I state it with some level of certainty because I've been playing mafia for a long time, and the things I said are true in a broad sense. I didn't think it was true of Vaimes specifically, but rather that it would be true of any player.
@last:
What is your read on Flarg, based on your prior experience with him.
How do you view the progress on #29, 52, 61 and 63?
@Flarg,
You speculated on town vs. scum Von movements with what appeared like some level of certainty, but without any prior knowledge of him, per your claims?
Explain your process please?
He doesn't have prior knowledge of me, as far as I know. The one game I know of him from I was hosting.
Who is Von? Can you link post? I don't recall doing whatever you're referencing.
Zion... less so. He complains about wanting stuff to do and betting there's Scum in the inactives, but he doesn't do anything other than kind of idly complain they're not here. Why not hunt in the actives? Surely he can't townread every active player. Strikes me more as Scum unwilling to start a wagon of their own and trying to shadecast "the inactives" so that they have broad options to move later.
Heh. Possible ping here.
On me or Zion? Either way, why?
On you. From a certain angle, it comes across as opportunistic/bussy.
Only from a certain angle, though, I'm just drawing attention to it for myself later. Don't mind me.
lol he hasn't even flipped yet and you're telling me it's bussy? if he does actually flip Scum we should definitely come back here - I think this post is probably indicative of you already knowing he's Scum in that case
I don't really get in what world putting a guy to 3 votes and L-5 is opportunistic either. Like, yeah, I would like this game to move forward instead of having totally stagnant 2 vote wagons, and he's scummy, so it's the most useful place I can vote.
@Flarg: What's the difference between my posts and Jackaritos?
Everything? For starters, they only really have one post (technically it's a double but it's really one post) in the area of the thread that I thought was scummy and it's a substantial post. He doesn't do any of what I called you out for in my post. Also, I think tonally he reads as Town.
Zion... less so. He complains about wanting stuff to do and betting there's Scum in the inactives, but he doesn't do anything other than kind of idly complain they're not here. Why not hunt in the actives? Surely he can't townread every active player. Strikes me more as Scum unwilling to start a wagon of their own and trying to shadecast "the inactives" so that they have broad options to move later.
A good reason to look at them as a group later on when we have more to go on.
I don't think it is obvious that you don't include inactives. If they're posting enough to not get replaced, but you'll need to cull them eventually, D1 is the optimal time to do so. I'm certainly pro-inactive lynch in games where I don't have strong scumleads.
Furthermore it makes total sense to me why eyebrows would get raised at nobody expressing pro-inactive lynch views and a lack of pressure votes on them early. Even if one is pro-information, it's weird if nobody is on the other side.
I'd argue that the lack of pressure towards inactives is actually indicative of one having rolled Scum here and a good reason to
How is this "irrelevant meta"? Not saying I agree or disagree with the assertion that you're posting and not being solve-y, but that's a pretty good indicator of Scum in general. That's not meta against you, that's just what Scum often do because they have TMI to solve.
Why does my alignment reflect on Vaimes at all?
How did you read that bullet point and edit out the most relevant thing in there?
It makes knowledge of his alignment more valuable to me because of the game mechanics?
Why? as his cellmate i'm curious
No, his quote tags got broken.
What actually seems more likely to you:
Jack decided he wanted to keep his options open, but made a wall anyway, so he had to sprinkle in 9 hedges in order to keep flexible on all 14 other players, none of whom had major wagons.
Jack is Town and it's a stream-of-consciousness post so you're catching him reconsidering everything as he writes it.
There's a huge difference between posting stances that you walk back in the same post (Jack) vs posting, but not posting anything game impacting (you up until your vote on last page)
You've never seen "soandso was endgamed!" as a cause of death when Town loses? Or like, a player talk about not wanting to live for a long time just to get endgamed? Much be a regional dialect I guess (#utica).
I state it with some level of certainty because I've been playing mafia for a long time, and the things I said are true in a broad sense. I didn't think it was true of Vaimes specifically, but rather that it would be true of any player.
He doesn't have prior knowledge of me, as far as I know. The one game I know of him from I was hosting.
Who is Von? Can you link post? I don't recall doing whatever you're referencing.
He's scum and more concerned with self-preservation than scumhunting.
lol he hasn't even flipped yet and you're telling me it's bussy? if he does actually flip Scum we should definitely come back here - I think this post is probably indicative of you already knowing he's Scum in that case
I don't really get in what world putting a guy to 3 votes and L-5 is opportunistic either. Like, yeah, I would like this game to move forward instead of having totally stagnant 2 vote wagons, and he's scummy, so it's the most useful place I can vote.
Everything? For starters, they only really have one post (technically it's a double but it's really one post) in the area of the thread that I thought was scummy and it's a substantial post. He doesn't do any of what I called you out for in my post. Also, I think tonally he reads as Town.
I actually don't get the wagon on him at all tbh.
On me or Zion? Either way, why?