Sesc:

Pretty typical agressive Day 1 post for Sesc. Personal stylistic preferences aside, it's a decent post, putting pressure on an objectively scummy player.

Explanation of why mechanics talk is bad is alright. Discussion of Firefly Mafia is in response to Aek and thus excusable. I like the question for Proph.

The vote for Rents really sticks out to me here. It just feels off. The only time I could remember Sesc switching his vote like this was in DLPhunt3 (hence my request for other scum!Sesc games- I wanted to see if it was a consistent pattern). There's also the fact that, while exasperated pressure on Rents to play is all well and good, we all know that it won't make a difference. The blab thing is kind of irrelevant to my mind.

The LochNess part just makes the Rents vote look worse to me- he thinks the post in question was both scummy and objectively wrong but votes for the Derp? Some light doubtcasting on blab's role claim follows, which I actually like: it's always good to have a Devil's Advocate. The indirect pressure on Aek in his response to Lucky and his question for Proph, however, gives me the impession of someone trying to start a bandwagon without actually being on it.

The light town read on Kalas and further discussion of blab's role claim are decent and fit the context of the thread. The bolded part interested me. Again, it just seems off. What's unusual about assuming that scum have day chat?

More pressure on LochNess. Looking back, it seems odd and out of character for him to have not been more agressive about it.

At this point, Sesc slips into mechanics discussion (and, arguably, scum coaching). He's self-aware about it, which mitigates it a little but it still seems like a wasted post to me.

Entirely justified response to blab's strawman.

Apologises for inactivity on his part. Appreciated, but it does make the previous posts look somewhat worse. Finally rescinds the Rents vote (notably, the Aek wagon had taken off at this point).

Commits to the Aek wagon and puts pressure on Proph. Strengthens his read on Kalas. Pressure on lurkers is pretty standard, as is the whole post really, save for the comment on font, which didn't make much sense to me and in fact could easily be applied to Sesc himself.

More pressure on Proph and the lurkers. Bolded part might be a little preemptively defensive. (Opinions?)

Summation: Looking back in light of Aek's flip, Sesc looks off to me. That whole thing with the Rents vote while indirectly putting pressure on Aek is particularly bad.

Anyway, analysis of Luckylee coming up after lunch. I'd really like opinons on the post quality thing and my Sesc analysis.

 

Does now count as later?

 

Or I could just be improving at mafia. Or maybe it's because it's day 2 and I actually have things to post about

 

There's definitely something there Caesar. I have to get to a lab course but my own Sesc analysis/(hopefully) analysis of Sesc's response coming later today.

 

Luckylee:

Not really sure what the point of this post was. The reads on blab and Fishy seem odd (blab's early posts had problems. I wouldn't say defensiveness was one of them. Fishy, meanwhile, was pure RVS at that stage.) The bolded section is, IMO, wrong and will be important later.

As previously covered, was wrong about the blab lynch. The bit about scum does not sit well with me. The part concerning Aek and Proph is ok but premature.

Answer about RVS is wrong but that's irrelevant. The part about who he'll pressure based upon blab's survival or lack thereof isn't good. (Albeit in a derpy way rather than a scummy one.) Last part reads like an excuse for not scum hunting.

Talking about targets rather than suspects, etc. is strange, as noted by font. (To prempt accusations of hypocrisy, my own use of the word referred to a target for blab's ability. I can see how confusion might arise, as I removed my RVS vote on Lucky in the same post and didn't specify what I was talking about at the time.)

Pretty believable post, explaining his mistake re:the likelihood of blab being lynched. On the whole, decent.

Dissected this one earlier. It still seems bad.

Still maintains there was a wagon on blab. Acceptable reasoning for the font thing. Like the pressure on Proph.

Aside from seeming ignorant of the concept of distancing, this is a pretty good respone to what is probably the derpiest thing I have ever posted. Again, bolded section is relevant later. Further pressure on Proph is good.

Compare the bolded sections with those in the previous quotes. See what I'm seeing? Anyway, the buddying accusation towards Aek and Proph is good, although somewhat invalidated by his reasons for not bringing it up before. The bit about his posting is horrible. It being Day 1 hadn't prevented anyone else from finding things to discuss. I'm also a fan of how he and LochNess can't be scum mates because she accused him, while that is apparently no obstacle for Aek and myself. The part about Aek ignoring Fishy's uselessness was pretty good though.

This is a good, concise, well laid out post.

Never liked that sort of reaction to the events of Night. (See Sacrifice in MM4). Call for blab's info and further activity are pretty standard.

This is a pretty decent post, proposing a relatively sensible course of action.

Bolded section is weird, and I don't like the suggestion of laziness in the closing remarks. Light pressure on blab. Somewhat greater pressure on Fishy and LochNess. Rest of it is meh.

And yet you were inconsistent during Day 1 as well.

Summation: Lucky looks scummy to me. The self-contradictions and the inconsistency, coupled with the suspicious timing of his vote on Aek (the middle of the wagon) and his indirect support of Sesc's pressure on Proph all adds up.

 

It's not like anyone else targeted Proph, like Kalas. /shrug I'm still somewhat new at mafia so I'll admit I'm not the best player, nor am I consistent. I fail to see how my post about InBlue was bad though, he posted a paragraph from 12 pages of content, thats bad. As for Aek, I never throw my Lynch votes early, but it's seems to be a viable tactic so I'm starting to use it, I'm trying to get better at the game. Rents was gone the entirety of day one, we should be grilling InBlue.

 

@Kalas: Eh, I still think most of what makes you drop of the forum is alignment-independent.
I just kinda hope she is not town given how hard it will be to get enough town-votes for a lynch.

@Caesar:
Analysis LuckyLee:
"The reads on blab and Fishy seem odd" His read was actually just a pun.

I mentioned that I could imagine LuckyLee being coached already in #169. His posts oscillate from barely understandable (to me) to well-thought out. I am probably the wrong person to analyze speaking-patterns and what not, though (because I'm not a native speaker).

target-thingy: Fair enough.

Analysis Sesc:

"Bolded part might be a little preemptively defensive. (Opinions?)" I am not sure how that is defensive, if I had to say what is wrong about that statement I'd say it is that it mistakes my role with a vigilante, which is what my role is if viewed from a scum-perspective (they die if I target them).

Sesc still doesn't have a post day 2. Vote: Sesc

Explain, please. I assume this is a response to the criticism of your position on the wagon. This reads like you're trying to get better at avoiding suspicion.

Do it.

 

1:My point is I never throw lynch votes early to pressure, but I'm starting to.
2:I already pressured InBlue, but he seems content to ignore it.
3:Blab- You explained why you targeted Fonti decently. But you targeting the one who died is still weird, and if it happens again tonight you're probably scum.
4:I didn't say this earlier because I didn't feel like doubt casting, but fuck being polite I guess.

TBH I don't really think lynching Fishy is our best option, I threw the vote on him to see if he would respond, and he isn't. The problem is there aren't any solid scum atm, but if we end up Lynching a derp!townie were gonna have issues. Fishy please post something. I've seen Sesc look at the thread a couple of times, and he usually post decent things so I'm somewhat weirded out as to why he simply vanished and hasn't replied or given any reads.

TLDR:Fishy needs to respond or he just looks worst. We could really use your input too Sesc. InBlue give something more concrete >.> I hate posting at people to post, but it's bothering me.

 

a) I'm hoping to target scum who will then die, so yeah....
b) You shouldn't post things like this: If I were scum it would give me an idea how to behave to make you think I'm town. Plus, you disregard how easy it would be as scum to fabricate a cop-result on a living town-player (given that scum knows who is town).
So: Now that you said that, only town-me runs into a problem if the unlikely scenario happens where I again target the person scum kills.
Posts like these make me think you haven't thought the possibility of scum-me through. Why haven't you? Possibly because you are scum yourself.

 

That is a very...manipulative(?) way to say it. I conceded that LuckyLee had a point, and added the fact that InBlue didn't put a vote on either of his suspicions. InBlue's post is largely meaningless as it stands. He replaced in on day two and we have next to no information on him. That's why I'm voting for him right now.

I was hoping he would respond to it, but he hasn't yet. That doesn't bode well.

But let's take the second assumption you seem to be making: you think I'm calling Lucky/InBlue a scum team. I never said that. They could be, mind, as Lucky didn't vote for InBlue when he pressured him. Instead Lucky put his vote on me, the bandwagon. That could be considered distancing. But, as of right now, I'm not operating under the assumption that they are a team.


Post on Lucky coming. It might take me a few hours. I'll get around to Sesc's post after that.

 

I'm reverse gloating? I thought you were town because you and Bill, while lurky were more helpful than Fishy and Lochness who were lurky and useless. Also why don't you give some of your own reads instead of just asking hypotheticals and implying things Sesc?

---------- Post automerged at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Just saw your post Fishy, InBlue just got in the game so it's a lil more understandable, compared to you, who has been useless and lurking since the beginning, so I voted you. But I can't wait to see what you've got to say about me.

 

Good to know I'm not seeing things then.

Re:Sesc- It seemed to me like he wanted you to avoid checking strong players-like himself. Coupled with the vigilante mistake it looks bad.

2-Because these analyses are at least partially for me to decide which of my five potential scum are the scummiest.

5-I noted that font's reads mirrored mine pretty closely before I posted the readwall. It's also not that unusual for font and I to have similar reads.

Anyway, analysis of Fishy incoming.

---------- Post automerged at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:54 ----------

Kalas followed up with a vote. What you and Sesc were doing looked like scum laying the groundwork for a town lynch.

 

Hey Sesc, what do you think of a Blab/Caesar/Kalas scum team?

 

This is not a post. A post is where you saw where you've been, give us some reads and/or throw a vote down. This is the discussion drive that you put at the end of said post.

6) Because as has been discussed (far too much) in a setting where alignment is randomly assigned lying about your role is next to pointless.

5) That is.. questionable I'll admit. Though if you want to compare the two their Luckylee PBPs should also be included

4) Reverse gloating? Explain please

3) I don't know and I can't think of any good reasons.

2) I'll give you this. Lack of vote was concerning.

1) Because I wanted to give you another look over before I threw a vote down.

---------- Post automerged at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

And no. Caesar, an abridged version of your reasoning on all five, then some reasoning to narrow it down to your top candidate and a vote. After that we discuss.

5 PBP's so you can feel out each case before getting confrontational is just bad.

 

I'm voting when I have all the analyses posted. I haven't decided in my QT because I want my analysis cross checked and I want to see how those being analysed react. Also, you and I have very different definitions of filler. Finally, I find it ironic that you're essentially accusing me of the same thing that is my primary reason for finding you scummy.

 

Address this please.

 

This was originally supposed to be much more streamlined and posted in a much narrower time frame. It kind of got away from me. My day has been kind of broken up as well. I have a pretty good idea of what my conclusion's going to be (Sesc, Lucky and LochNess/Fishy) but I want to see what other people think, in case I missed something obvious or made a mountain out of a molehill.