Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Of course not, I'm just saying, don't call me Eor.
Well, first of all, he said he could only post once.
Can't daykillers in most mafia games also be able to send PMs to the game mod about who they want to kill ? If so or if it is possible for Rockin to do that then he could've asked us to decide which person we wanted to kill and he could've PM'd the target to EE. Anywho, after reading everything last night, I got more I want to say but I'll post it later. There was a post that caught my eye which seemed suspicious to me but I'll need to search for it again.
Now it sounds like he's putting the blame for the no lynch on others--"we went with the no lynch," but "I felt [Eor] was a good lynch candidate". But you didn't vote for Eor! In fact, I couldn't even find a post of yours D1 where you so much as hinted at a suspicion of Eor, so saying you thought he was a "good lynch candidate" D1 seems totally revisionist.
Eor hadn't posted since Kevin decided he was for a no lynch D1. Extreme lurking? Okay, he wasn't alone, but I'll give you that. Extremely scummy behavior? Uh, what? Kevin is now saying Eor is "extremely scummy" when he didn't even seem to be on his radar as of Eor's last post. To be sure, other people (myself included) had called Eor scummy for things he had done. But Kevin didn't say specifically what he thought was scummy about Eor either D1 or D2, or what other people said was scummy about Eor that he agreed with. It's almost like a delayed "me too" vote, where Kevin just assumes that we all still think Eor was scummy because he seemed that way yesterday, even though Kevin himself didn't want to lynch him then or indicate that he found Eor suspicious at all. It all appears very opportunistic.
Yet Kevin's complained about Eor's "extreme scumminess" and him "giving off scum vibes" without explaining where either comes from.
@smashman: most games? I dunno. Daykills are often anonymous, yes, but not always. I'm assuming Rockin wouldn't have daykilled publicly like that if he didn't have to.
@Kevin: maybe this game is just moving slowly, but I feel like I've waited long enough for your answers. So I'm going to get all this off my chest now, and make use of what time's left to discuss it.
Finally! Some discussion, I wouldn't expect anything less from you
I'm pretty suspicious of Kevin. He did some things that caught my eye D1 and his behavior D2 has been offputting. I'm going to try to be pretty thorough about what I've noticed so don't mind the length of the following (but do please read it, don't skim it--I trust the BRoomers among you will at least be somewhat used to this).
Seriously, for those involved in this game expect to read a lot with Kiki, he's not much for conciseness but he's very very analytical his posts can be helpful if you take the time to look into them
In P150 Kevin FOSed people who were discussing Tom's post restriction. It was a fair move on its face because discussing the post restriction was indeed bad (for reasons discussed then, I'm not going to repost them here), but it bothered me because Kevin didn't mention anyone by name. He just mentioned "Anyone who continues to draw attention the the restriction". I brought up my concerns in P158, which essentially went like this: if discussing the post restriction was suspicious enough to garner a bold "finger of suspicion," why wasn't it also suspicious enough to warrant FOSing people by name who had discussed the restriction? FOSing no one by name takes an FOS (which is already pretty weak, compared to a vote) and dilutes it further by not making it clear who you're actually suspecting, so (a) they're less likely to object to your suspicion and potentially put more attention on you, and (b) they're less likely to defend themselves if they think your suspicion is misplaced. It also doesn't require that you read the thread carefully enough to note who's actually engaging in this suspicious behavior, even though noting who's acting suspiciously seems like something one would do if one were legitimately suspicious of something someone (or some people) have done. In P163 he clarifies his FOS was against "anyone that will keep talking about it or those that drew attention to it multiple times"--but again, he didn't name names, despite the fact that I had asked him who in particular he was suspicious of. In P169 and P173 he just reiterates why he FOSed, but didn't explain who exactly offended him so or why he didn't want to name them.
I feel I've adequately explained why I did this as I believe you mentioned, it's sucha long paragraph that I can't remember if you said I adequately did or not, let me check... Yeah ok you said I did but your main complaint is that I didn't say who?
Kind of a mute point this late after it happened but I was mainly posting towards people like Hando and Marshy, whom both know that fishing for a role restriction is never particularly helpful for townies. However since it was early in the game and I hadn't picked anything up on them yet at that point I didn't feel the need to draw a lot of attention to it and have the weaker players jump on it like it was gospel word.
In P190 Kevin votes MexicanBJ with no explanation. Much of this discussion has been had already so while I don't want to rehash it all, I think it's worth reminding everyone what happened. P217: MBJ wonders what KevinM expected in response to his vote. P235: Kevin asserts he did have a reason for his vote (contrary to MBJ's suggestion): he basically says MBJ is feigning activity, not commenting on the game, and asking questions about terminology (like "FOS") he already should have been familiar with. Okay, but in P243 and P260 MBJ responds pretty reasonably: it's unreasonable to expect him to familiarize himself with "FOS" in advance, his posts that don't relate to terminology questions amount to more than what several other people had contributed thus far, and Kevin's vote (being devoid of explanation) had no indication of being either serious or a joke. Kevin never really responds to these points, perhaps in part due to Nick's fake daykill (P307). But his reasoning for voting MBJ in the first place seems inadequate, and when MBJ (and others) pressed him on it, he didn't have all that much to add.
I didn't have all that much to add because there wasn't. It was a simple press for information, I had nothing else to discuss with him besides the fact I hadn't felt he contributed at all. I got the responses I needed from him and felt satisfied. Had I been more suspicious I would have continued to prod him. You of all people should know that's how I use my early votes, I press for info and if I'm satisfied I move to the next,
In P250, I ask Kevin who else he suspected besides MBJ. It was a one line post with no other content, partly because I wanted to see how closely Kevin was reading the thread and I thought a post like that would be hard to ignore (compared to tucking that question within a longer post, at least). In explaining his FOS he had complained that other people were skimming the thread, so I figured he should be reading the thread pretty closely. But his next post P255 makes no reference to my post. I vote him to see if it gets his attention and he responds in P305. Eventually he answers my question (Nick was suspicious after he fake daykilled, then "no one worth a vote," but Marshy was "pseudo coasting"). At this point many people (including myself) were focusing on Nick's fake daykill, however.
To be honest, I didn't feel the need at that point to make a suspect list that early in day 1 when I'm still looking for slip-ups. I ignored it yes, and sorry if you feel offended but at that time your question wasn't pressing to me. I didn't feel the need to name names and have them switch up their playstyle, but like I said, mute point but the people I was looking at were Hando and Marshy.
Fast forward a bit. Eor's last post of D1 (and, well, ever) was P505. In P524 Kevin votes no lynch, saying "the only players with pressure on them are real power players." Compare that to what Kevin said about Eor in P682:
Now it sounds like he's putting the blame for the no lynch on others--"we went with the no lynch," but "I felt [Eor] was a good lynch candidate". But you didn't vote for Eor! In fact, I couldn't even find a post of yours D1 where you so much as hinted at a suspicion of Eor, so saying you thought he was a "good lynch candidate" D1 seems totally revisionist.
I did feel Eor was a good lynch candidate. But I'm not about to swing a bandwagon on an inactive player Day 1 with little to no evidence besides the few small things I had on him up to that point. No lynch is a safe option on day 1, it's also IMO the best course of action to take in that situation.
Backing up a bit, in P599 Kevin votes for Eor:
Eor hadn't posted since Kevin decided he was for a no lynch D1. Extreme lurking? Okay, he wasn't alone, but I'll give you that. Extremely scummy behavior? Uh, what? Kevin is now saying Eor is "extremely scummy" when he didn't even seem to be on his radar as of Eor's last post. To be sure, other people (myself included) had called Eor scummy for things he had done. But Kevin didn't say specifically what he thought was scummy about Eor either D1 or D2, or what other people said was scummy about Eor that he agreed with. It's almost like a delayed "me too" vote, where Kevin just assumes that we all still think Eor was scummy because he seemed that way yesterday, even though Kevin himself didn't want to lynch him then or indicate that he found Eor suspicious at all. It all appears very opportunistic.
I answered this in the last bolded statement but I will reiterate why I want to at least get Eor/Xsy posting in this game. The reason is, Eor is such a powerful player and a normally active player that if he's mafia, and we're letting him coast the one or two days without anyone besides me putting pressure on him, we're putting ourselves at a severe disadvantage. Call my extreme scumminess a hyperbole, but it proved to be largely ineffective, as the votes are scattered and not more then half the people are even voting at this point. If we could have put pressure on Eor we might have been able to hear some discussion out of him but you're forgetting that at one or two votes you don't even have to respond early game and largely it will go unnoticed. So I continued to reiterate that i thought Eor was scummy and stuck my vote on him deftly. I don't like his inactivity and I surely don't want to give a dangerous player a free ride to D3 or 4.
Moreover, this is the same kind of behavior Kevin himself criticized earlier in the game (P456, talking to Nick):
Yet Kevin's complained about Eor's "extreme scumminess" and him "giving off scum vibes" without explaining where either comes from.
P600: I ask Kevin if he's going to look at other people or not today, because he's gunning for Eor early and steadfastly. In P603 Kevin insists he's still planning on scumhunting, but besides posting about general inactivity in the thread and some posts relating to Handorin being silenced, he shows no signs of looking into anyone else in his next posts. In P638 he just reiterates that he wants Eor to post.
Explained above for you :D
P645: I ask Kevin to elaborate on his suspicions of Eor, and discuss who else he thinks is suspicious. P659: Kevin votes Rockin after he daykilled Wario-man, and in P661 a couple minutes later he puts his vote back on Eor. In P663 he finally explains his other suspicions, saying "it's all based off of inactivity"--except for Eor, who is also "giving off scum vibes". To be honest I expected more substantive scumhunting from Kevin. Claiming that your suspicions are "all based off of inactivity" doesn't really convince me that Kevin is paying close attention to the game or forming legitimate, substantive suspicions.
The problem is we don't have enough votes being moved around to form strong discussion. Think about it, lets look at the votes real quick.
SharpEvil (1): Nothing Rhymes With Circus: Voting bassed off of inactivity, and wanting to see more opinions.
Eor Xsyven (1): KevinM: Voting based of inactivity, wanting to generate discussion, a couple of weird posts and wanting to actually see some voting power swing around
Ignatius (2): Nicholas1024, Marshy: Voting mainly based off inactivity and a couple of odd posts from Iggy.
Handorin (1): Macman: I believe inactivity, I may be wrong maybe he has more about it.
KevinM (1): Kirby King: I'm not quite sure he had some big post or something
Thats a whole lot of nothing its easy for any scum to just silently sit through all this, it doesn't matter.
Town needs to act uniformly there votes are their voice but they need to use them in tandem. One vote means nothing this early in the game, Hell if I wanted too I may have been able to sit through all of this no problem.
I've gone into this some already, but his reasoning for voting Rockin also bothered me. Like I said before I thought it was suspicious given the discussion we had about sudden daykills. I also mentioned that Kevin's reaction--"being pissed"--was very unlike Kevin. Even in this game he's bemoaned "sensitive players" who vote based on hurt feelings rather than substance (see P304-305), so his vote for Rockin just because he was pissed seems artificial; like I told Rockin, I think players (experienced players especially) should be able to avoid doing things out of simple frustration. I honestly don't know what he meant by saying he doesn't think Rockin is town, and maybe there's an obvious explanation I'm missing, but when he unvoted he said it was because he didn't want to lynch Rockin "based off one stupid mistake". If you think it was a mistake I don't see how you can think Rockin isn't town--again, I could be missing something (and if you think I am, tell me so), but I don't think so.
I agree it was very unlike me, but I also like to take these seriously so if something like that goes that wrong I get a little upset, plus there was a double motive behind it, and that was to reiterate my vote on Eor maybe to get the vote swinging again. Also my stupid mistake thing is based off IF he is town. So you didn't miss anything, you merely misinterpreted where I was coming from
Another point, probably less important than what I've said above: Kevin complains that Rockin used his daykill "without asking for even a vote first". Never mind the fact that Rockin had only one post for the entire Day, so if he were to ask for a vote in his one post he would just be revealing his vig powers without getting a chance to use them. True, it might have been preferable for him to just not daykill at all D2, but that's not what Kevin said--he said Rockin should have taken a vote first. That's not even a workable solution so I don't know why he suggested it. It makes Rockin look bad, I guess, but not really for a valid reason.
Meh, I wasn't thinking straight, I'll give you that, it was a very dumb idea. I have no defense for this, I concede this point to you.
So. That's a pretty decent overview, I think. The one remaining thing is that I'm still waiting for Kevin's elaboration on why he suspects Eor. You might argue that I haven't given him enough time to respond to those requests, but I'd argue given how he's been on Eor's case all Day and his earlier criticism of Nick I really shouldn't even have to ask why he finds him scummy. He should have already told us.
Hope I've helped.
Vote: KevinM
Hmm, I guess that makes sense. The one thing I might say is FOSing someone and then watching who latches onto that without contributing anything could potentially have yielded some leads, but it's hard to fault you for not laying out that trap.
I guess my main concern here then was that you didn't really make it clear that MBJ had addressed your concerns. It seemed like you had made a case against him, pushed him even as he was answering your questions (and other people were questioning your case), and then your case against him just sort of disappeared as if you wanted to pretend it never happened. Like I said this was probably in part because of the fake daykill but I still thought you dropped the case remarkably quickly, like you wanted people to forget about it. I could be overanalyzing.
Alright, I guess I can appreciate that you didn't want to cause people to change their playstyles, since that's a point I hadn't considered. But I don't think it would have been difficult to just acknowledge that a question had been asked of you, even if you didn't want to answer it. (As a side note, did you maybe think it might have been useful to have Handorin change up his playstyle at that point?)
Here is where I have more of a problem with your reasoning. I don't understand how Eor was a "good lynch candidate" if you had "little to no evidence besides [a] few small things". I don't even know what those "few small things" were since you gave zero indication whatsoever that Eor was even marginally suspicious in your eyes. Basically I don't see how a good lynch candidate isn't also an acceptable lynch candidate. If you thought no lynch was an okay option at that point I guess it's hard for me to disagree on that point alone, since it's not like it preempted discussion. I still think we would have benefited more from a lynch, since we might have gotten mafia and we at least would have had a more conclusive end to that paper trail.
I wouldn't say you were the only one putting pressure on him. He had plenty of pressure on him D1--he almost got lynched. You might have been the only one to pressure him D2 but you did that pretty early (at least relative to the number of posts that had been made, which admittedly may not be saying much). You seem adamant about not letting a dangerous player through to D3 without contributing much, but I don't know why Eor couldn't have been pressured more D1--surely you must have been willing to lynch him if he didn't respond to the pressure?
It's pretty hard to disagree with you here in terms of the town's activity. It's been pretty pitiful. The sad thing is this kind of thing tends to happen every game, so I think I'm sort of used to it at this point.The problem is we don't have enough votes being moved around to form strong discussion. Think about it, lets look at the votes real quick.
SharpEvil (1): Nothing Rhymes With Circus: Voting bassed off of inactivity, and wanting to see more opinions.
Eor Xsyven (1): KevinM: Voting based of inactivity, wanting to generate discussion, a couple of weird posts and wanting to actually see some voting power swing around
Ignatius (2): Nicholas1024, Marshy: Voting mainly based off inactivity and a couple of odd posts from Iggy.
Handorin (1): Macman: I believe inactivity, I may be wrong maybe he has more about it.
KevinM (1): Kirby King: I'm not quite sure he had some big post or something
Thats a whole lot of nothing its easy for any scum to just silently sit through all this, it doesn't matter.
Town needs to act uniformly there votes are their voice but they need to use them in tandem. One vote means nothing this early in the game, Hell if I wanted too I may have been able to sit through all of this no problem.
If Rockin's "stupid mistake" was conditional on him being town, it wasn't very clear in your post. It implied that you thought he was town even when you voted him, but then decided it wasn't worth lynching him over a stupid mistake--as if it was okay to lynch him in the first place over it, even though it seems unlikely he would be mafia with a daykilling power. Obviously no one wants to lynch a townie, so "if" someone is town we shouldn't lynch them. So I'll ask this: what do you think about Rockin's alignment? We shouldn't absolutely rule anything out, but given that he did have a daykill (and based on the flavor and my checking of Wikipedia, it seems to be his, rather than something he got via his poisoning) how likely do you think it is that he's mafia? independent?
)
I have found it, it was this post:
Circus I believe has already mentioned Macman's claim but nobody seemed to notice that. This strikes me as suspicious because Macman wasn't getting lynched or anything. I don't think anybody even had a vote on him and if there was, then I doubt there would've been enough to nameclaim to save yourself. He basically had no reason to claim the Green Goblin. Macman, why did you nameclaim? There was no suspicions against you until after you claimed GG. And I doubt that there is any role restrictions forcing you to claim GG.
IIRC; Kevin said he thought he was scummy and would have voted him, but that the situation turned so that the best option ended up being a no lynch. He then brought it back up.
This. I also want to know why. We haven't heard much from him at all since he claimed.
Wow Kiki, I didn't know you were capable of ventriloquism, pretty impressive.Well, after reading through KevinM's response and Kirby King's answer, I'm going to have to
Unvote
Vote KevinM
The main reason I'm voting him is that he was quite inconsistent on how scummy Eor was. He was unwilling to lynch him D1, but on D2, he backtracked and said he found Eor extremely scummy, without saying why. Your answer to that point was unsatisfactory in my opinion. A "good lynch candidate", should be someone you would be willing to lynch.
(As a side point, I agree that the town activity is incredibly pathetic.
I'd say that you're wrong on that point. If I feel that I have a good scumtell on someone, (or someone says something that bothers me) then I follow it through. However, when I'm having trouble picking up tells from anyone then I wait for someone else to give me some more discussion to work with and then state my opinion on that.
Here you go. Refresh your memory.
Yes, I agree. I believe I pointed this out before (though it might have been more prominent on mbj at the time). I think really the only times this hasn't been true was in his bouts with me. Other than that, it has been mainly sheep work.
Then prove it.
Comes in after I make the 4th or 5th vote on Tom and after people begin to talk about an executioner. He feels the need to give his input, and I would consider this a slight FOS on me.
He uses another post to back up KevinM even though he was completely wrong about what KevinM was doing.
Yet again, he continues to back his argument, while FOSing me more strongly.
I'm clearly biased here, but does this combination of observations strike anyone else? I'd like to think it would stick out to me even if you replaced "Kiki" with someone else's name but I thought I'd ask.
