Zombie Apocalypse - Game Over: SK (T1mm) Wins

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby eculc » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:52 am UTC

alright, now that I have some time to collect my thoughts...

Trine: Not sure how I feel about the D1 skip/NL. he says that it's usual on other fora he's played at, so Neutral for now.

TMG: helpful, adds content quite a bit. The analysis post was nice; Everything so far seems good.

T1mm: immediately votes GoP in his first post? weird, especially since nothing has even been discussed yet. then he talks about how he'll unvote if someone gives him a good reason...which he counts as GoP saying he's town. maybe it was just to strike up conversation, but If he wanted that, I'd think he'd leave it a bit longer. Not sure what to think of that.

Radical: pretty much agrees with people, until he starts talking about the NL D1. even then, he agrees with people more than anything else. the latest wall-of-text post is good, though.

Fearless: Doesn't add much until more recently. then, accuses me of spreading suspicion (and makes a good case for voting me), then votes Radical? as well, she's essentially explaining that away by saying he's pretending to be a newb? bonus points for pointing out that if I was the SK I'd probably be familiar with the SK-specific rules, but still seems a little off. Leaning scum--SK maybe?

Misnomer: Early on, advocates quickly lynching the SK. Also latches on rather fast to t1mm's mistake about doctor powers. Hasn't said anything since then. I'm thinking possible scum so far.

GoP: quickly defends himself from t1mm's vote, which makes sense. then starts discussing statistics of doctor/cop numbers. Not a fan of the vote towards me, but not too concerned just yet.

Green: nothing after their initial post, which talks about quickly lynching the SK. also leaning scum, mostly from the lurking that a vote didn't draw him out of.

MN: talks about lynching claimed power roles in their first post then goes on to FoS TMG for saying something similar. Neutral for now, considering the questions/discussion about how doctor powers work, but their first few posts seem counter-intuitive.

So far, feeling strongly about Fearless and/or Green. possibly misnomer, but that's all for now.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.
User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:03 am UTC

I agree that TMG is far from scum (at least for now :o )

I'm not going to make any judgements, or any FoSes for now, because I don't feel comfortable trying to scum hunt based solely on post content.
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Gopher of Pern » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:07 am UTC

trineroks wrote:I agree that TMG is far from scum (at least for now :o )

I'm not going to make any judgements, or any FoSes for now, because I don't feel comfortable trying to scum hunt based solely on post content.


What else are you supposed to scum hunt on?
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy
User avatar
Gopher of Pern
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Mostlynormal » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:24 am UTC

Mostlynormal wrote:Fearless's last post was a bit strange. She gave a very good case for lynching eculc and then decided to vote R_I instead. "Pretending to be a newbie" just seems like a too paranoid reason to base a lynch off of. It almost seems like she's trying to "spread suspicion on everyone," something she accused eculc of doing, ironically.

eculc wrote:Fearless: Doesn't add much until more recently. then, accuses me of spreading suspicion (and makes a good case for voting me), then votes Radical? as well, she's essentially explaining that away by saying he's pretending to be a newb? bonus points for pointing out that if I was the SK I'd probably be familiar with the SK-specific rules, but still seems a little off. Leaning scum--SK maybe?


This is screaming scummy to me, but I do want to be cautious of newbie mistakes being interpreted as scumtells.

If you agree with my assesment, then say so. Even better add more (to be fair, you did mention something about SK rules at the end). But reposting my suspicions rearranged like they're your own just looks like scum pretending to post more content than they really are.

The "far from scum" comment by trineroks is really weird, but I'm not sure if it should be interpreted as scum feeling too certain, scum "helping" a scumbuddy, or a flippant comment by town.
Mostlynormal
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:51 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:
trineroks wrote:I agree that TMG is far from scum (at least for now :o )

I'm not going to make any judgements, or any FoSes for now, because I don't feel comfortable trying to scum hunt based solely on post content.


What else are you supposed to scum hunt on?
From my forum mafia experience, Day 1 is a discussion/get to know eachother day.

We usually scum hunt on Day 2, based (partly) on the discussion from Day 2 as well as some claims, behaviors of players after someone gets killed, etc.
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:51 am UTC

discussion from Day 1*. Sorry for the typo.
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby eculc » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:31 am UTC

Mostlynormal wrote:
Mostlynormal wrote:Fearless's last post was a bit strange. She gave a very good case for lynching eculc and then decided to vote R_I instead. "Pretending to be a newbie" just seems like a too paranoid reason to base a lynch off of. It almost seems like she's trying to "spread suspicion on everyone," something she accused eculc of doing, ironically.

eculc wrote:Fearless: Doesn't add much until more recently. then, accuses me of spreading suspicion (and makes a good case for voting me), then votes Radical? as well, she's essentially explaining that away by saying he's pretending to be a newb? bonus points for pointing out that if I was the SK I'd probably be familiar with the SK-specific rules, but still seems a little off. Leaning scum--SK maybe?


This is screaming scummy to me, but I do want to be cautious of newbie mistakes being interpreted as scumtells.

If you agree with my assesment, then say so. Even better add more (to be fair, you did mention something about SK rules at the end). But reposting my suspicions rearranged like they're your own just looks like scum pretending to post more content than they really are.

The "far from scum" comment by trineroks is really weird, but I'm not sure if it should be interpreted as scum feeling too certain, scum "helping" a scumbuddy, or a flippant comment by town.


Yes, I agree with your assessment. reading it over again, it does sound a lot more similar to your post than I intended it to be, sorry.

as far as trine, his comment seems more like trying to agree than trying to protect TMG (considered with the "at least for now" part)
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.
User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby greenlover » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:05 am UTC

Ah, I was hoping I could lurk until the weekend and then make a post, but it appears as thought the deadline isn't going to give me that luxury. Ah well. Right now, I'm primarily suspicious of two players: Tim and eculc.

t1mm01994 wrote:Statistics have proven that GoP should die.
Vote Gopher of Pern
Your jokes are not nice. You surely are scum. What are you going to do about it?

This post and the unvote that occurred not too long afterward ping me a bit. On one hand, it was pretty obviously intended as a joke, but the fact that Tim voted makes me wonder if it wasn't so much a joke as a distancing measure, or a quick way to try to establish a link between this game (were he would be scum) and previous games (where he was town)? I'm probably just being paranoid. Primarily, though, his posts seem a little... off. He messed up reading the rules, made a joke, and, generally, he seems to be approaching this game a whole lot less seriously than he has in the past. That strikes me as odd.

On a different note, eculc has done a whole lot of scummy stuff, but most of can be written off as novice mistakes. Still, a lot of what he's done are textbook examples of scum tells (bandwagoning, tying yourself to a prominent towny, etc), so I'm not sure if it should be considered novice mistakes from town, or novice scum being too obvious.

Right now, I feel most comfortable lynching either Tim or eculc. I most decidedly don't feel comfortable lynching Radical, as I do not understand that case that's being laid against him. Normally I wouldn't lynch someone on the tells that Tim and eculc have shown, but 1) this is D1, and often D1 lynches aren't as justified as later lynches are, and 2) lynching someone for something they actually did - rather than lynching a lurker or active lurker for something they aren't doing - strikes me as the better idea.

Pre-edit - Hm... a quick glance back through the thread shows fearless taking some heat for a pretty bandwagony post. I would agree that that's pretty suspicious, but I would have to lump her in the same category as eculc - pretty novice, but unsure if that is novice scum or novice town. Definitely someone to keep an eye on, though.
User avatar
greenlover
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Mostlynormal » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:30 am UTC

eculc wrote:Yes, I agree with your assessment. reading it over again, it does sound a lot more similar to your post than I intended it to be, sorry.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to be mean or something. I knew it could be a newbie mistake but I had to see the way you reacted. Since your reaction was reasonable and not scummy, I'm going to have to agree with Greenlover. It could be a newbie townie mistake or a newbie scum mistake but we can't tell yet.

I'm still the most suspicious of fearless, and I'd like to see what she has to say. I don't think T1mm's behavior is scummy. Approaching the game less seriously could be laid back town or scum trying to look like laid back town but the WIFOM eventually just brings it back to neutral. In my opinion, fearless is a much better lynch, for the reasons stated above.
Mostlynormal
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby fearless » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:38 am UTC

Wait a minute. Before Radical made his uber long explanatory post, MostlyNormal also raised suspicions for Eculc and then voted for Rad.
I did the same and all of a sudden /I'm/ suspect? HELLO?
Now that Rad has explained himself I'm going to Unvote as I'm sufficiently satisfied with the response.
Which leaves eculc - he hasn't convinced me at all. He just agrees with the latest analysis so FOS eculc
Trine's NL suggestion doesn't ping me but the inactivity/short posts does. And it's normal for at least one mafia to take on the role of lurker/observer so FOS Trine
User avatar
fearless
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:49 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:13 am UTC

fearless wrote:Trine's NL suggestion doesn't ping me but the inactivity/short posts does. And it's normal for at least one mafia to take on the role of lurker/observer so FOS Trine
I already wrote above that I am not comfortable with day 1 lynches; hence I really do not have anything else to say.

And I'm guessing your post was meant to be a response to Mostlynormal and eculc and their suspicions of you. You then quickly unvoted and then pointed fingers at me and eculc (whose behavior I think is odd, but not scummy).

Now in my opinion, your post seems like a sudden attempt to switch focus from you to me and eculc (and I would like to emphasize "sudden"). But why me? Because my posts are short? That makes me look scummy? I'm here getting used to a new way of playing forum mafia and you go and accuse me of "active lurking"?

Should I create a huge wall of posts to appease you, your majesty?
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby fearless » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:48 am UTC

trineroks wrote:
fearless wrote:Trine's NL suggestion doesn't ping me but the inactivity/short posts does. And it's normal for at least one mafia to take on the role of lurker/observer so FOS Trine
I already wrote above that I am not comfortable with day 1 lynches; hence I really do not have anything else to say.

And I'm guessing your post was meant to be a response to Mostlynormal and eculc and their suspicions of you. You then quickly unvoted and then pointed fingers at me and eculc (whose behavior I think is odd, but not scummy).

Now in my opinion, your post seems like a sudden attempt to switch focus from you to me and eculc (and I would like to emphasize "sudden"). But why me? Because my posts are short? That makes me look scummy? I'm here getting used to a new way of playing forum mafia and you go and accuse me of "active lurking"?

Should I create a huge wall of posts to appease you, your majesty?

I accepted what you wrote about d1 lynches - but surely you can still participate in the discussion? Even if you don't vote, there is plenty of other observations to make. I unvoted because I felt Rad's defense was solid so why should I keep my vote if I no longer see him as the most susipicous person?

A huge wall of post is unnessary but more effort would be nice.
User avatar
fearless
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:49 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby fearless » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:50 am UTC

Sorry, unnecessary**

And gee, accusing the person who's accused you. Looks like you're jumping on the bandwagon to get me lynched. How novel.
User avatar
fearless
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:49 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:55 am UTC

And there's greenlover
Unvote

I'll be along later to vote
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.
User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:22 am UTC

Oh and trine: where do you normally play mafia? That's an honest question, I'd be interested in seeing how it works over there.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.
User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby t1mm01994 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:51 am UTC

Swooping in to post again, very much has happened since my last post.
To all the new players out there: You are a majority in this game, so it is likely that one of you gets lynched while learning the game. Yes, it's sad. Yes, you can join another game and continue to learn.
Having that said, my completely insane vote was meant as a joke, and a way to agressify the meta. Appearantly, it made other people comfortable with voting for lesser reasons, which was the goal from my vote. That's why I withdrew my vote over "I'm town."
So, because I've been a bit lurky so far, a good ol' analysis post will do.
eculc: At least stop using your newness here as an excuse. It's annoying. The older players know who's new, and for the new players, everyone is new. No need to stress it over and over again.

fearless: went /very/ defensive after someone attacked her.. More defensive than I ever do when I'm town. Then when the attack on her was over, went /very/ offensive on someone else. Some strange things happening there.

GoP: played the statistics (and imo, not very well at that), and voted eculc for doubling a lurker vote, which can easily be explained by lack of meta knowledge, and that's the exact reason why you let trine off the hook. Little content, but in that little content, inconsistency.

Greenlover: Mainly attacked me for giving a vote for no reason at all, which is understandable, because it's out of the usual meta. As said at the start of the post, it was solely meant as joke and a way to let other people vote. Having that said, in my first two games, I played pretty badly, so I'm trying not to construct any links there. Happy with the fact you've posted though, you're making progress ;) (townie feeling here)

Misnomer: Some rolespec, and a FoS on me for missing something, while 2 posts before that, he missed something himself. Not sure what to think there, but I will refrain from actions yet, to prevent OMGUS from blocking my sights.

Mostlynormal: Pretty solid posts so far. Quick to vote, but I like that day 1. Mainly has been doing helpful stuff for the newer people, and that could be kind scum, but I'm going with kind town for now.

R_I: Went on with active lurking at the start, but got himself together and produced a very, very solid post as the last one. leaning town here, too.

TMG: Still mad at me for Hogwarts, so I should probably watch my back.. But in all seriousness, looking solid so far.

Trine: No, you don't need huge walls of text as I am doing now, but a post consisting of more than 2 rules, or preferrably with some content in it, would be awesome. I'd put a lurker vote down if there wasn't already so much pressure on you...

Long story short: I'm going to go with one of fearless or GoP atm.
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby t1mm01994 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:45 am UTC

EBWOP: In the TMG part, I mean Neighbourhood > Hogwarts.
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

sc2mafia.com

Where they give you anonymous accounts for forum mafia.
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby trineroks » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

And fearless, I'm not on the boat for lynching you. Let's make that clear. I was just surprised how defensive you became and how eager you were to pass the blame on to others.
trineroks
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - Day 1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

MikeD has been replaced by Woopate

The talking and accusations crescendo as dusk starts to fall on the safehouse. Suddenly, Misnomer says, “Wait, where’s Mike?” Everyone looks around, and Eculc mutters, “Mike? Who’s Mike?” Gopher o’Pern says, “Is that the kid who still doesn’t think we should lynch today?” As a few players smirk, Trine glowers, saying, “I hate you all.”

Boom! Boom! Boom! The sound of loud knocking interrupts you all, and you are shocked to hear an unfamiliar voice call from outside the front door. “Hurry lemme in! I got your buddy with me!” Zombies don’t talk like that, so you open the door and see a tall, strong male holding the bloody and broken body of poor Mikey D. “I found him on the street like this,” the stranger says huskily. “Damn zombies… well anyways, can stay with you guys since you’re down a man? I won’t be a bother, I’ll just take over whatever this poor guy had going on. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. The name's... Woopate.”
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Woopate » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

"The name's... Woopate" in fluff and crunch alike! I'm Woopate, whose regal headwear seems to defy physics in much the same way as horses, with stoic indifference. The reason I'd most want to remain unlynched on the first night is that I made a promise to my sweet sweet aunt before she joined the Peace Corps and ran away to the circus. I've got a lot of catching up to do, and I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me making too many posts without meaningful content this late in the day, so lemme throw some laundry in the machine and get to typing out my thoughts on our apocalyptic mess.
Image
User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Misnomer » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:Misnomer snapped a little early, but early game seems a good time for shooting without looking first.

Shooting? Blimey, it was only an FoS. :shock:

But yeah, regarding the various suspicions that my FoS has earned me, I would like to point out that I did NOT FoS t1mm because he appeared to misunderstand the rules. Instead, I voiced my suspicions because he appeared to be soft-advocating a course of action that was harmful to town. Advocating tactics harmful to town is scummy - the defence that the rules were not read therefore cannot be taken at face value. It might be true, but it might also be cover.

Not to mention it's bad logic regardless - even in normal games where a doctor can protect anti-town factions from other anti-town kills, the use of doctor powers is hardly considered 'risky'. It read, and still reads to me, like a subtle attempt to put doubt into the heart of potentially newbie doctors and dissuade them from using their powers.

My FoS stands.


Now, I appear to have fallen behind somewhat, Readthrough and more comprehensive post to follow.
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

OK, this likely to be my last post before N1 due to reasons of going away. Let's make it a bloody good one.

fearless: Votes radical seemingly based on paranoia. Very uncritical of me. Unvotes, acts defensive. Uses rule of active lurking (AL) to FoS Trine, of whom she was previously uncritical. Has done nothing to lower her scumminess rating.

Misnomer: No new posts, no change, as I feel an AL vote on a neutral looking player would be unwise this late on.

Gopher of Pern: Quick on getting eculc for the GL vote, the townie points for that will arrive shortly. Otherwise no change.

Eculc: Wandered right into that very obvious scum trap. It would have almost been forgivable if that post wasn't just a rehash of words I already said. Analysis post seems very negatively slanted, with focus on bad points. Not nessacerily scummy on its own, one of the few things I'm willing to actually ascribe to newbity. No vote yet, possibly spooked from before. Scummy. Very little towniness at all.

trineroks: Little new content. I don't find his reluctance to vote too scummy as I remember how daunting I found it first time round.

greenlover: Finally, a post! And he suspects Tim, who hadn't come under much fire before. Towny points for risky move. Town side of neutral. Or at least not Mafia...

t1mm01994: Decent analysis post. Only one thing leaps out at me
Still mad at me for Hogwarts[sic] I should probably watch my back
Slight ping from this, as it weakens any point I make against him, which'd be a sensible scum tactic.

MostlyNormal: Calls out trine, suspects fearless, defends tim. Neutral.

Radical_Initiator: Decent break down of his opinions on trine. Avoids obvious fearless vote. Nothing obviously telling either way. Neutral.

Woopate: No towny player has a smile that big. Let's lynch him! Sorry, typo. I meant to say 'Hi'.

Scum
eculc
fearless
trine
tim
misnomer
radical_initiator
mostlynormal
greenlover
GoP
Town

And for fans of lists, The Masked Gecko is proud to present a new, bonus list:

People I think could be the SK
greenlover-decides that the SK must die. No, wait, here me out! While his logic makes sense, he misses the fact that finding the SK would be nigh on impossible. Seems more like distancing than a valid strategy to me.
mostlynormal-the obvious choice, with his seeming protection of the SK. That perversly makes him less likely to be SK in my eyes. It's just too obvious.

Ok, so that's wasn't really a list. Ah well.

Vote: eculc

unofficial votals:
eculc: 1 (TheMaskedGecko)
eculc: 1 (Gopher of Pern)
fearless: 1 (mostlynormal)

4 hours, 45 minutes till deadline.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.
User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby t1mm01994 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

So uhm.. Paranoid TMG is paranoid. Might be humor, might be SK, might be town, might be winy scum. Don't really know much about that yet...

But yeah, with deadline coming up, I'm going to put my vote where my heart is atm which is
Vote: fearless
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Misnomer » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

Big messy analysis post go go go!


Trinerocs:
1. First post and immediately advocates day skip. I hold with the consensus that this is a disasterous move, but I am aware that it is often standard play elsewhere. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and call it neutral.
2. Queries presence of non-existant games mechanics. Interesting but irrelevant
3. Defence of NL plan and explanation of non-present mechanics. Benefit of the doubt continues and I call it neutral
4. Calls for speedy SK lynch. Neutral
5. Question on death role revealing. Neutral
6. Points out that SK is kill-immune, not lynch-immune Neutral
7. Backs of from NL position. Neutral
8. Becomes the third player in as many posts to plead newbieness. Neutral
9. Seems to imply that they won't scumhunt! I'm going to flag this as slightly scummy, but tbh it's more bizarre than anything else.
10. Defence of above position. Neutral.
11. EBWOP to correct typo. Irrelevant
12. Snarky response to fearless' FoS. Neutral
13. Irrelevant
14. Says he opposes fearless lynch. Neutral

Fearless:
1. Intro post - states unfamilarity with extra roles concept. Neutral
2. Claims cuteness - Irrelevant.
3. Analyses the problems with SK removal and doc claiming tactics. Slightly townie.
4. confusion at TMG lynch-immune sk claim. Neutral
5. Calls for lurker lynch. Ever so slightly scummy, because lurker lynches tend to harm town more than scum.
6. Irrelevant post regarding eculc's internet access.
7. Comments that Trin should not be suspected. Neutral
8. Defends self from fearless - votes radical after rejecting newbie defence. Bit of a wishy-washy case, but then it is a D1 vote. Neutral
9. Unvotes, and FoSs trine and eculc for various forms of low-content activity. Neutral
10. Defends actions, nothing much new. Neutral
11. EBWOPs and accuses Trine of jumping on the bandwagon against them. Neutral

GoP:
1. Bizarre intro. Shoots down day skip suggestion - as GoP is a regular player here though, he's just reflecting consensus, so this can't be seen as townie. Neutral
2. Brief rejection of the claim he's good at scum (not to self: check this). Neutral
3. Decent setup explanation and analysis. Slightly townie.
4. Says he is pinged by trine, but that this could be due to different meta issues. Neutral
5. Calls eculc out on GL vote, and votes for him. Slightly townie
6. Questions trine's decision not to scumhunt. Neutral

TMG:
1. Points out setup makes follow-the-cop difficult and allows for easy scum claims. Slightly townie
2. Some irrelevant stuff on non-present mechanics. Queries what usually happens in games with SK. FoSs trine for nl suggestion. All fairly neutral
3. Says we can't trust our doctors :shock: presumably this means our 'doctor' cop results. Queries whether we should lynch confirmed doctor/sk results. Neutral
4. Believes SK is lynch immune, mistaken but not an obvious scumping - Neutral
5. Clarifies mistake. Neutral.
6. Clarification of his position re: dockilling. Neutral
7. First impressions post - key points are suspicions of eculc and RI, with a content-incuding lurker-vote on GL. Slightly townie
8. FoSs eculc for their GL vote. Neutral, as it comes after consensus emerged.
9. Unvotes GL following the creation of content. Neutral
10. Irrelevant post about trine's usual haunts.
11. Analysis/summary post. Thinks eculc and fearless scummy, votes eculc. Stresses closeness of deadline. Slightly townie

Radical_Instigator:
1. Contentless intro post. Irrelevant
2. Humourous yet irrelevant post.
3. Thinks 2 doctors at the end will tie the game. Neutral
4. Superbowl discussion. Irrelevant
5. Underworld discussion. Irrelevant
6. Points out to eculc that sk cannot be nk'd. Neutral
7. FoSs Trine for NL advocacy - safe, neutral.
8. More of the above. Neutral
9. Complains that there's not much to go on, but doesn't support T1mm suspicions. Neutral
10. Defends self, pleads newbieness, wants to know what content they are supposed to be producing. Neutral
11. Content! Few clear conclusions, but content nonetheless, and a quick scan makes it seem sensible. Slightly townie.

t1mm:
1. Introduces self, links to help post - noble, but pretty irrelevant gameplay wise.
2. Random vote is random and apparently aimless. Weak-argued lynches are of course a standard feature of D1 voting, but there should be at least some reasoning or purpose behind it, otherwise D1 becomes a massive waste of time. Slightly Scummy
3. Explains why NL is a bad idea, because D1 lynches aren't random lynches. Semi-experienced, so familiar with consensus, therefore neutral
4. Says vote on GoP is serious, without putting forward any reasons why it should be serious. slightly scummy
5. Says he voted GoP because he'd rather lynch someone experienced if he had to random lynch. But just the post before he said that D1s shouldn't be about random lynches. Scummy
6. Unvoted his 'serious' vote on the basis of a non-defence. slightly scummy
7. Claims the doctors are in for a hard time, being in the worst-case scenarios only able to protect 4 out of 10 players. Neutral, though significant for later.
8. Ah, the post that earned him my FoS. Points out how 'risky' doctors allegedly are, which as I have said above appears scummy. Furthermore, upon re-analysis his claim to have not read the rule fulls flat - his previous post clearly reveals that he knew doctors could not protect scum. SCUMMY
9. Says he's not used to the mechanics. Neutral
10. Claims initial vote was a joke, contradicting his earlier claims. Weak suspicions of GoP. Slightly scummy
11. EBWOPs.


mostlynormal:
1. Picks up on the doctor's ability to know the result of their actions. Runs through the potential implications of this, and also puts forward a plan to deal with claiming. Slightly townie
2. Not sure what to make of this: more useful doctor analysis, but then FoSs TMG for advocating sk lynch - as has been pointed out, SK is also the natural enemy of town. Neutral on balance
3. Agrees with eculc that my actions are suspicious, citing meta saying that T1mm has a history of appearing suspicious (therefore presumably I should let it slide? don't agree with that logic at all...). Rejects suspicion of trine. Basic discussion of setup issues and doubts. Neutral
4. Votes for RI on the grounds that they've been producing little content. I think there's a bit of a case to be made here, but it's the kind of accusation anyone can make, so I'm gonna call it Neutral.
5. Switches to voting for fearless after they vote for RI - this pings a little, and make me wonder if mn nd RI could be scumbuddies - though this is only a doubt in my mind as opposed to an actual provable theory yet. Still, slightly scummy.
6. Accuses eculc of plagiarism. Neutral
7. Reiterates suspicions of fearless. Neutral

eculc:
1. Intro post. Supports the Patriots therefore Scummy. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant post about trouble getting internet access.
3. Same as above - irrelevant
4. Points out that mikeD hasn't posted yet, and suggests preferring scum lynch over sk lynch on the back of this - misses fact that sk can't be nk'd. Neutral
5. Corrects post, but stands by main points - more 10-player spec. Neutral
6. FoS's me for my Fos on eculc, but says there is admittedly little to go on. I'm going to resist my OMGUS instincts and call this neutral.
7. Maintains suspicions of me, rejects suspicions of radical. FoS fearless for active lurking. Sticks an immediate second lurker-vote on GL - completely uncalled for, and smacks of bandwagon formation. Scummy
8. Immediately unvotes in face of opposition, pleads newbieness. Neutral
9. Rejects suspicions of radical. Neutral
10. Summary/analysis post - finds people suspicious that other people have found suspicious, not much new content. Neutral
11. Brief response to plagiarism allegations. Neutral

Greenlover:
1. Argues that removing SK should be town priority. I'd argue against this analysis, but it's not scummy by itself. neutral
2. Voices suspicions of eculc and t1mm, both of which seem sound to me. Slightly townie

Woopgate:
1. Weeeeird intro. Irrelevant


Ok, that's a lot of stuff there but my main suspicions are T1mm and eculc.

Vote: T1mm
FoS: eculc


T1mm has not only acted suspiciously, but has repeatedly contradicted himself, for example by claiming to have no knowledge that doctors couldn't protect scum when he previous posts clearly discuss this. My scumdar is going wild, and I think he would make an excellent D1 lynch.

Failing that, I'll vote eculc if I'm able to get online again before the deadline.
User avatar
Misnomer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Radical_Initiator » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

Very busy day today; if I don't get in now, there may be little chance to change later. Therefore, this may be light on good explanation, but it's the best I can do before the deadline.

I've got to go with my gut here, and I think fearless has been acting a little more suspiciously in recent posts than I'd seen previously. There's the oft-mentioned post where she makes the case for eculc (and to a certain extent, I share some of the same suspicions), which is reasonable. Then votes me for purportedly using newness as a cover and for questioning trine. But getting voted for happens; can't take that personally. The larger part of the suspect behavior is the reaction to Mostlynormal - seems like trying to shift attention after an odd post gets questioned. I saw Mostlynormal's vote for me as a prod for content (I'm working on doing this better), but fearless adds the "clearly newb cover" argument, which I find baseless after the part about eculc, noting that eculc has been claiming newness as well. If newness is a cover, be consistent.

Then FoS on eculc, which was the obvious second choice from the earlier post, and flips on trine a bit for lurking (still don't see how lynching lurkers is an obviously good strategy). Trine comes back defensive, and then fearless claims a bandwagon to lynch her. Multiple votes does not necessarily make a bandwagon. And I'll say that I'm rather suspicious of eculc as well, so I'm not above changing this vote if more/better info comes to light. As it stands, though:

Vote: fearless

FoS: eculc
I looked out across the river today …
Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Woopate » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

So I wrote most of this while as I did my latest read-through. Opinions at the begining do not reflect opinions at the end. I figured I'd do it this way so you can get a better feel for my reactions to things as they came up.

Spoiler:
page 1:


The first thing I noticed (and how could I not? It was the first thing in the thread) was Trine's call for a skip of day 1. After the explanations given, I find it reasonable to assume it's just a meta difference in playstyles from where he's used to.

t1mm01994 drops a random vote on Gecko, which seems like a normal strategy. Start some fireworks early, maximise visible reactions. Get conversation going. Though I think that such obvious forced conversation would yield little in the way of useable information, it's better than chatting about weather till the sun sets. He unvotes really quickly, which seems to confirm this already very solid premise.

The next event we get is a discussion about power role numbers. The unknowns here really bother me. Docs, and Cops, at least one, no more than three, up to two of either, and SK reads as a doctor. This is going to make roleclaiming much less of a stable option than I think it is usually. If I were the serial killer, I'd probably want to aim for a scum if possible the first night. That would drop the scum down, reducing the chances that the townies would be able to successfully pin down the remaining scum and cannibalize for a day or two. Provided the mafia aren't painfully obvious. In any case, the uncertainty in roles undermines both cops and roleclaimers, or, more specifically, a confirmation from a cop of a doctor roleclaim is entirely unreliable(unless someone has a way in which it isn't).

Gopher of Pern then suggests that the first target should be scum. This seems like a common sense sort of idea. More scum than serial killers, and like I previously said, if I was serial killer I would probably try to side towny come night 1.

Greenlover suggests offing the sk first, to slow the tide of blood, as it were. If the sk can be offed right away, one less kill a night to worry about gives a lot more flexibility time wise. This tickles my scumdar a little bit, a very little bit. There is very little in day 1 that would give away a sk, plus it reduces the odds of success to 1/11. No better than guessing, unless the sk gives a hard tell.

Mostlynormal drops a FoS on Gecko for advocating hunting the sk, much in line with my previous reasoning. He fails to finger greenlover for the same thing just one post earlier, and the times are far enough apart that there was no chance of ninja. Either scummy or an honest miss. The suggestion (it seems more like a musing, but it's enough to get the idea into the collective conciousness) that if a doctor roleclaims, the other doctor should roleclaim immediately. This seems like a terrible idea, as if there is only one doctor, the sk gets a comfy wall of trust. Though on closer examination, if a doctor and an sk roleclaim, if 2 cops also roleclaim, there will be a crazy amount of Wine. This idea makes my head hurt, a chain reaction claim. I'll store the possibility in my mind for later.

Trineroks throws his vote behind a quick kill on the sk. Perhaps my original thought that the sk would first side townie was not as clear cut as I thought.

Fearless points out the difficulties in pinning down an sk early.

End of my thoughts on individual posts on page 1.


Two things kinda jump out at me.

1. sk can only be lynched by townies, not night killed by mafia. That suggests to me that mafia has a huge incentive to get the sk out of the way, and that their only tool for doing so is treachery. This might be a good place to look for slips.
2. This also means that if there's a night where there's only 1 night kill and the sk remains alive, it would gather a lot of information if no doctor came forward. It would show that the mafia now know who the sk is, if the doctor claim could be trusted somehow, and at that point will start trying to move townies to lynch the sk.
Spoiler:
page 2


fearless suggests lurker lynching. From what I've read, this is a quite neutral approach. So far fearless feels quite townie to me, but cautious, which could mean a defensive stance.


Misnomer points out that while a sk lynch would be nice, there's no reason to give up a scum kill for it. Sound advice, but seems a little obvious to me.

eculc gives an excuse for lurking.

My predecessor is outed for lurking by eculc, who suggests that the scum might take care of the sk for the townies. This after about 4 or 5 posts discussing that such an eventuality could not happen. Scumdar goes off a little, but the mistake is too blatant, I think.

misnomer points out that a sk lynch for the townies has the potential to cause townies problems by throwing numbers in the scum's favor.

t1mm01994 suggests (rather intelligently) that the doctor reads of the cop ability should be ignored, but otherwise cops function as normal. He also emphasizes the dangers of a late game doctor claim. So far t1mm feel quite townie to me.But then I look at the next post and

realize I missed the bit where t1mm advocated doctors not doctoring. He takes it back though. Not sure where this puts things. Misnomer fos's t1mm. Seems like a harsh reaction.

Gopher pings trinerok's spidey sense, to be honest, at this point he pings mine too, even if he's used to a different style of game.

eculc fingers misnomer for the aforementione harsh action. Clearly he thinks so too.

another finger at trine from radical. Looks like he's getting a lot of heat.

mostlynormal throws out meta that I do not know first hand, vouches for trineroks.

trine defends.

Gecko speculates, throws a vote on greenlover to snap green out of lurking, I have not seen since page 1, suspects eculc, trine, radical. Can't find myself disagreeing, looking over notes I have not found much noteworthy in Radical's posts.

eculc bandwagons the greenlover vote, and fingers fearless. eculc seems scummier to me now. Like, ringing major bells.

Gopher votes eculc for bandwagoning an incentive vote.

eculc defends with an unvote and a newb-claim.

Mostlynormal votes radical based on low content posts.

Radical makes excuses.

eculc bandwagons excuses

gecko fingers eculc. Unless something changes as I keep reading, I'll drop a vote for eculc too.

votals:

greenlover 1: (Gecko, formerly also eculc)
radical: (mostlynormal)
eculc: (gopher)

fearless votes radical based on suspecting his noobish claims as false. I somewhat disbelieve that. It's very reasonable that he, like me, spectated a few games before signing up. Does not excuse low content posts though, an end to which I have yet to see.

radical defends with a lot of waggling on his advocacy for a d1 lynch. Seems to be trying too hard on that front. I know the reasons for and against a d1 nl. Please, I'd like to hear something else.

radical pokes at misnomer about latching onto a minor mistake. Reveals that advocating an early sk kill is an easy way to get onto his scumdar. This is a premise I can follow along with, it follows my own reasoning. radical dismisses lurklynching
radical points out a bunch of names of people, doesn't give many suspicions, except one for eculc.

mostlynormal unvotes radical and revotes fearless, citing a post with lots of content aganst eculc, but a vote for Radical. I noticed this too.

End of page 2.


Thoughts: Eculc gets scummier by the post, almost too much so. "too much scum" isn't really a good enough reason for me to change my mind though. Radical got attacked pretty hard. He did make one, fairly solid post though. Still on scumdar.

Spoiler:
Page 3:

eculc mentions briefly the d1/nl. Seems like a dead horse at this point. lists suspicions:
is confused by t1mm's early vote to get conversation flowing. Seems to point a little bit towards newbishness.
mentions radical's yes-man vibe. Points out last post was solid.
suspects fearless of scum or sk for slamming him hard then voting radical.
suspects misnomer for sk lynch advocacy
green still lurking
mostlyimmortal confuses him

overall a fairly well put together post. Pulls some of my suspicion away.

mostlyimmoral calls for support from eculc against fearless with veiled suspicion.

eculc responds

green moves from the murky depths of lurksville, evidently drawn from silence earlier than he had hoped. talking about t1mm's first vote, suggesting some sort of meta influence from what looks like an innocent icebreaker. points out eculc, suggests that his mistakes could be novice. Says he's comfortable with either. Finishes with some suspicion at fearless. Most of this seems reasonable to me.

mostlynormal throws another suspicion at fearless

fearless fingers trine. Both are scummy, I'm not sure what I think of this yet, though fearless is closing in with eculc for scummiest-survivor in my books.

trine points out sudden nature of finger. This is correct. Trine slipped off the podium a while back, feels like fearless is pulling in a scapegoat.

gecko unvotes greenlover as per the assurance when gecko put the vote down in the first place. Nothing to see here.

t1mm attempts to justify arbitrary first vote, seems legit. This is a pretty normal strategy.
t1mm suspects fearless, points out gopher voted eculc for a newbie error when he let trine off the hook. Interesting.

t1mm does not mention thoughts on eculc at all, but suspects fearless or gopher. This seems like a major omission given eculc's present heat. Will have to watch this more closely.

Enter our glorious hero: me

Misnomer defends.


Gecko makes a monster post, throwing some suspicion at t1mm. And my smile. I worked for months to perfect that smile. Months. Throws a vote at eculc.

t1mm votes fearless
misnomer votes t1mm and fingers eculc after massive post-by-post analysis with mono word responses to each. I agree with much of what is said.
radical votes fearless, fingers eculc.


As I said before this is a rundown of the story-so-far. If I haven't added much new, forgive me I had a lot of stuff to cover. I hope I had a few insights that are productive, but much of my earlier speculation was covered with later posts by others.

Fearless has managed to build a lot of heat. So has eculc, though. Both are very close to even in my book. There's something in the way fearless is defending against the flak that makes me have a higher suspicion than of eculc, whose defense post seemed quite well put together. Fearless actually seems to be scrambling more in defense, throwing a finger at Trine after he's been out of the spotlight for a bit.

VOTE: Fearless

FoS: eculc
Image
User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby t1mm01994 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

@Woopate, I know this would fall under the "irrelevant" side of Misnomers analysis, but you might want to use FoSes over fingers because well, that caused a lot of immature chuckles on my side :lol:
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

Votals:
fearless: 4 (Mostlynormal, t1mm01994, Radical_Initiator, Woopate)
eculc: 2 (Gopher of Pern, TheMaskedGecko)
t1mm01994: 1 (Misnomer)

6 votes to hammer (end day early)

3 hours and 30 minutes to deadline.
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby fearless » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

vote eculc

I'm a townie, really. Not sure why people say I'm being "extra defensive" - but whatever. Being lynched first feels pretty sucky, but I'm sure it won't be nearly as sucky as when the voters find out they lynched a townie.
User avatar
fearless
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:49 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby greenlover » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:21 pm UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:greenlover-decides that the SK must die. No, wait, here me out! While his logic makes sense, he misses the fact that finding the SK would be nigh on impossible. Seems more like distancing than a valid strategy to me.
I guess I should probably explain this. It had occurred to me that it would be next to impossible to determine the difference between a SK and a normal scum, actually. However, I didn't mention that in the post because the assumption that we already knew if a player was scum or sk had already been made by the person whom I was replying to at the time. The entire discussion was, as far as I could tell, an exercise in the hypothetical.

From the looks of it, there appears to be a bandwagon forming on fearless, and eculc should get some kind of award for his votes:FoS ratio. Although fearless has done several scummy things (primarily, a near textbook example of bandwagoning), I'm hesitant to vote for her because I don't have a very good meta read on her, and I can think of several examples of where a towny jumped on a bandwagon mostly because they were just too lazy to do a full analysis. I'm suspicious of both fearless and eculc, but I'm more suspicious of Tim, because Tim doesn't have the "First/Second time playing on this forum" excuse for his change in style. Additionally, Tim seems to be shrugging off the accusations people have been making against him, rather than fully responding to them. Thus, Tim earns a vote, while both fearless and eculc earn a FoS.

Vote: Tim

FoS: Fearless

FoS: eculc
User avatar
greenlover
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Gopher of Pern » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

Unvote

Vote: TMG


While I started the votes on eculc, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, due to their newness. I also dont understand the votes on fearless, but I do admit I'm not paying as close attention as I usually do. T1mm I actually agree with their analysis for the most part, at least the bit about me. I have not played particularly townie this game, so I dont know why I'm being pegged as townie.

Which brings me to TMG. They have buddied me soooooooooo hard, its not funny. Every post of theirs seems to be loving praise of me. They have no reason to conclude that I'm so towny, which makes me suspicious.
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy
User avatar
Gopher of Pern
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby eculc » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

Alright, one more post before N1 rolls around, mostly concentrating on the last page-or-so.

Trine makes a comment about not making a decision off of people's posts? that seems odd, as GoP pointed out.

MN accuses me of paraphrasing his post, which I responded to. I'd like to think there's more of a communication error in there than anything else.

GL (Finally) makes a post and discusses Trine's early vote for GoP.

Fearless FoSs me and trine. Me for agreeing with an analysis, and trine for lurking.

Trine explains his lurking with his uncomfort at voting D1.

TMG unvotes in preparation of his *real* vote.

t1mm: analysis post. including pointing out that /I/ point out that i'm new? I guess in my first few posts, yeah.

woopate arrives.

misnomer explains his FoS at t1mm as he (t1mm) was advocating something harmful to town. however, in their FoS post, said it was because doctor's don't need to worry about using their power on scum/SK?

TMG: puts *everyone* but woopate on the scum list? fun. Also votes for me--not fun.

Misnomer: makes a BIG analysis post. I more-or-less agree with everything said, with exceptions to some of the points about t1mm, but for the most part he seems pretty much accurate. (as a side note: when did I say that *I* supported the patriots? :mrgreen: )

Radical: makes some notes about Fearless and her latest posts. seems consistent.

Woopate: makes a sizable analysis of everything so far.

Fearless: votes me. I'm assuming this is because of her previous reasons, as she didn't give anything of the sort in her post. claims town, which is understandable. is no longer defensive about the votes on her.

GL: explains their reasoning behind wanting to lynch SK *eventually*. points out the bandwagon on fearless.

GoP: unvotes me and votes TMG? so far, TMG seems to be pretty town, so this seems a bit weird. explains their vote as being nervous about all the praise they've gotten from TMG. still seems weird, but not necessarily bad.

I think I'm going to have to go with...

vote: Fearless

Not because I'm trying to bandwagon, and not because of the obvious OMGUS, but I honestly feel that she's acting the scummiest.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.
User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

@eculc: that's a formatting error on my part. It's not a scum list and a town list. It's a spectrum from scum to town. woopate isn't on it because he hadn't really posted at the time of writing.

@GoP: You're an intensely unlovable, smelly, ugly, slimy low living piece of shit who is looked down on by things that live under rocks.
But seriously though, that's one of the things that struck me about fearless, so the reason doesn't strike me as scummy. What does is the timing. It's weird this close to the deadline. The only explanation I can see is that your protecting eculc as your scum buddy.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.
User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby eculc » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:31 pm UTC

@TMG: Ah, I didn't catch that. and Yeah, I assumed woopate wasn't on it because he hadn't posted at the time, but I was having a hard time trying to word that to not make you sound super-paranoid. also, GoP isn't protecting his scumbuddy, as I'm not scum.

This'll probably be my last post before N1, and If I get murderized by scum or SK, G'bye all. if not, see you D2!
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.
User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D1: Welcome to the "Safe" House

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:36 pm UTC

As day turns to dusk, the safehouse grows restless. You don’t have much time before the zombie horde comes out in full force. Pushed into the center of the room, a suspicious-looking young girl stares each of you in the eye, showing not a hint of fear. Although a few of you speak up in her defense, those arguments are swallowed up by the angry cries of the majority. Timm yells, “Well, shoot her already!” A Glock is slowly passed around the circle until Eculc gathers up the nerve, takes the pistol in hand, and slowly aims at the girl’s forehead. A long minute passes. The condemned girl stares into the barrel of the gun, murmuring prayers in a low, steady voice. Eculc takes deep breathes and tries to calm his shaking hands.

“EEeeeerrRAAWRRR!” A zombie! Inside the safehouse! It jerks down the stairs as low gurgling moans drip from its bloody mouth. Eculc quickly turns and pumps two slugs into it, blowing off most of its head. The decapitated zombie slams back into the wall and slowly slides down the staircase. It must have come from the second story window! Galvanized into action, Eculc coolly shoots the fearless girl three times in the chest as the rest of you grab your weapons and run to your assigned places. Though slow, the zombies are strong and can bend the steel bars which cover the first floor windows. They also can push each other up through the second floor windows and balconies, as the fresh gore on the staircase proves. Four of you take the main floor, where you fire out of the barred windows. Four of you go to the upstairs balconies and windows, and two of you climb the ladder to the roof. The bloody body of the fearless girl will just have to wait until morning.


Final D1 Votes:
Fearless - 5 (Mostlynormal, T1mm01994, Radical_Initiator, Woopate, Eculc)
Eculc - 2 (TheMaskedGecko, Fearless)
T1mm01994 - 2 (Misnomer, Greenlover)
TheMaskedGecko - 1 (Gopher of Pern)

Fearless has been lynched.

It is now Night. You are too busy killing zombies to talk. PM me your night actions by Sunday, February 12, 8:30pm CST. You’ll find out Fearless’s alignment in the morning.
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - N1: Aim for the head

Postby Adam H » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

Night 1 is over

Light peers up over the horizon and someone shuts down the flood lights outside. Most of the zombies wander away, though a few of the more stupid ones stick around and continue beating against the bloody brick safehouse walls with their limbs and their heads.

As you make your way into the large meeting room, you’re greeted by not one, but three dead bodies. Fearless is lying lifeless exactly how you left her, but the other bodies are fresher. Trineroks is pumped full of bullet holes. Misnomer's body is splayed across him, disfigured with several dozen knife wounds. The killers are still alive!


Fearless is dead. She was Vanilla Town.
Trineroks is dead. He was Town Doctor.
Misnomer is dead. He was Mafia.

Day 2 starts now. 8 players alive, 5 votes to hammer. Deadline on Friday, February 17, 4:30pm CST
User avatar
Adam H
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

So, it seems our SK has struck gold.. That's the only way I can explain Misnomer dying. That means 5 town, 2 scum, 1 sk, and we have lost 1 power role. Not too bad for a day 2, to be fair.
To look at misnomer: He's got TMG and GoP down as slightly town, me down as scum, and greenlover down as slightly townie. Especially in the GoP case I find this strange, as GoP was one of the persons that pinged me day 1, and misnomer doesn't even have a "slightly scummy" down on him.
I might be hallucinating here (if I'm saying stuff that isn't true, tell me and I'll rectificate it right away, with 7 of you I trust you will point out mistakes), but I believe Misnomer also attacked me for my random day 1 vote, which I hope clearly was just a random vote, with no chances of bandwagoning whatsoever... I'm thinking he went a big overprotective, and as such I'll throw out a completely free FoS on GoP.
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

So, SK got a scum. And it's Misnomer. Let's look at what he did:

Draws attention on tim's opening vote. Either he was relying on high newbity levels for this to raise suspicion or it was some gentle distancing. I'm going with the former. What's interesting about this is that GL took this up later in the game and votes for tim. And yes, I know I offered him townie points for this, but in hindsight that whole post is scummy.

FoSes tim for saying doctors are risky.

Analysis post: NEUTRAL; trine, fearless, R_I, mn, woopate
TOWN; GoP, me, GL
SCUMMY; timm, eculc

And that's it. He didn't say much and there are only two players with any major link to him:
timm, who he guns for quite heavily. It seems a bit too heavy to be distancing if you ask me, as he almost seems to be inventing reasons to Fos or vote

GL, who is the only other to join in on the timm lynch. He hasn't said much and what he has said has been mostly safe except for the timm vote.

FoS: greenlover

Also a belated ebwop: in my last post
I wrote:that's one of the things that struck me about fearless

as compared to
I should have wrote:something similar struck me about fearless

I only noticed the ambiguity after the deadline
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.
User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:36 pm UTC

Wait, there was some attacking against me day 1. It seems that one of the 2 was scum, but GL decided to follow him, so I might as well respond to that, too. Which accusations are it you speak of there?
All I can find is Misnomer jumping on my back for being unable to remember stuff properly, and you attacking me because I "approach this game less seriously than other games".

Quick explanation for what I did so far: Day 1 vote was just to make sure people were free to vote. I figured the chances of an unbacked first day vote going bandwagon were so small that it was impossible for anyone to REALLY make a deal out of it.. I targeted GoP because he said his joke was bad, and I figured that was as good a reason as any if you're going for a purely random vote.
My doctor post was merely because of misremembering. To be honest, with 10 people checking what you just wrote, knowlingly saying something boldly false is quite a big risk, in the best case scenario you gain nothing.

Me not "seriously" responding to Misnomer's assaults was because I had a hard time believing that I'd get voted for because of a random vote and misreading stuff. It appears now that Misnomer was scum, but I'm still not really sure what he was trying to achieve by not following the bandwagon.
Greenlover, if you have any more questions, ask away, I'd gladly explain.
Now for attacking again: Upon rereading, Eculc, you've been acting somewhat scummy. I honestly think it's new town rather than new scum, seeing how your style resembles my first game (I was town there), but some general advice: (spoilered for irrelevance, feel free to check for non-consensus stuff)
Spoiler:
1: If you make a long post, make sure it actually has content. You had a post reciting day 2, and that's all it did. It recited what had happened, without ANY personal opinions whatsoever. This might be considered a scumtell due to it seeming you are creating content, while actually you're making a subjective synopsis.
2: Make sure your opinions either are your own opinions, or credit the one the opinion originally belongs to. I think you've seen what's the problem with that.
3: Lurker votes are to put pressure on a lurker to actually create content. These votes very usually don't make it to a lynch, and if they do, it's because there is no content for a too long time, or active lurking (contentless posting). As such, they are to remain as 1 vote on that person, until there is a reason to put more pressure, or until there are better reasons to actually kill this person.
User avatar
t1mm01994
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

PreviousNext

Return to Mafia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests