Newbie 892 - The Future of Magic. Game Over! Mafia Win

[dimaba]

Hello hello everyone, sorry for missing the first 24 hrs of this.

@Dimaba and Cdubs

If either of you are active could we have reasons for why you are not interacting with the rest of the group?

No problem. I have a test coming up tomorrow that I had to study pretty hard for. I've been doing that + sleeping for the past 24 hours. The test'll be done tomorrow and I won't be lurking after that.

vote: The Tracker

Because I support RayFrost's reasoning.

2. seems to be attempting to bring support for the LaL[urkers] policy, which is terribly anti-town, since the town gets very little information from a lurker dying (easy mislynch, no connections to other players makes it low info, etc). He obviously knows about prods and replacements, so his support for LaL[urkers] is scummy.

3. He says there is not enough information to scumhunt, yet he does nothing to provide information to aid in scumhunting. Very " well, we can't do our job without information, but I'm not gonna put myself out there *baits somebody else to do so* " type of thing.

And I'll add a tiny thought of my own which I admit is farfetched.

Considering this...

Even just joking about a doctor, or anything like that, can give hints, either hints from the person making the joke, or hints based on how other people react to a joke.

... Tracker's joke about Doctor roleclaiming in his name could theoretically be an attempt to draw a reaction.

[dimaba]

My my Dimaba, you certainly seem to be jumping on the vote right off the bat. Yeah, okay, Frost's reasoning makes sense but mind bringing some of your own ideas to the table instead of just following the SE?

I sure don't. But really, what else was there to reason about? The ony anti-town action I could see was the LaL-policy you seemed to support. And since that point had effectively been made by someone else, why go through the trouble of retyping it? There just wasn't enough information to form an idea of my own that hadn't been mentioned already, certainly not at 2AM while in dire need of sleep.

On that same point, I fail to see where you added any thoughts of your own on who to lynch. You seemed to have done that with the LaL-statement but now that you've explained how that is just a last resort and not an effective way to find scum, where are your thoughts on who to lynch?

At this point I see voting as a way to force people to defend themselves. So as long the vote doesn't put anyone close to a lynch, I don't see how it is bad to vote right off the bat.

Things about other players that caught my eye:

LordChronos: hasn't added anything in the discussion. Voted on one of the inactives and has spent most of his time asking questions about gameplay etc. My feeling right now is new and not sure what to add, but probably not deliberate scum action. That said, he is the one that's getting closest to being an active lurker. I'd like to see him post more.

Jackabomb: Encourages discussion at all points, involves himself in serious discussion and is critical without being fanatical. Gets town points from me. This caught my eye because it is quite different to how he played in the last game we had together.

easjo: sensible thoughts on lynching lurkers (post 96) which are slightly contradicted by the statement that lurking is in itself suspicious (post 50). Only slightly though, as post 96 makes clear that the reasoning there applies only to day 1 lynches.
@easjo: do you think lurking becomes a reason for a lynch on future Days?

cdubs: inactive. Might be heading for replacement? I'm not suspicious of him yet. Lurking IMO becomes suspicious only when players consistently post just before they would be prodded or just after they have been prodded and then disappear again until the next 72 hrs have passed, or when they post to appear active but don't actually contribute. It's then a deliberate action to draw as little attention as possible and still be useless to town.

Nothing much to say on other players yet.

And again, any arguments at this point are based on vague suspicions and minor disagreements and I'm sure my vote will change in the course of the day

[dimaba]

Wow, nothing much to say about me, yet you use my reasoning as support for one of your votes.

I must be very... nondescript, then.

I suppose I should've mentioned you but I thought my opinion on you already showed well enough from my support for your reasoning and your vote. There wasn't anything new to add and I didn't have anything to ask you.

[dimaba]

@Dimaba: Now why would I have a thought on someone to lynch when the day has just barely started? I'm not going to even think about putting anyone on the chopping block just yet. So why do you want a lynch opinion? Thinking of steering a quicklynch, scumboy?

If you read correctly, the point is not that I want you to vote on someone, the point is that you have accused me of not bringing my own ideas to the table while you had not brought yours either. I'm not asking for a vote, I'm asking for opinions. "If we had to lynch now, who would you lynch and why?" is a question that can be answered without putting heads on the chopping block. Just let us know who you think is most suspicious or let us know that you don't find anyone suspicious. Either is fine, but so far you have spent your time responding to what others think about you and not saying what you think about others.

[dimaba]

I've been responding in defense of myself. I saw no need to post opinions at that point in time.

Anyway, if we had to lynch someone right at this moment and I had to hammer, I would go with you, Dimaba. You hopped on the thread then voted me without any ideas other than Ray's. I'm going to be found suspicious in some games I play, yes, but for you to just hop on Day 1 without ever having posted and just saying "I agree with Ray, vote Tracker," appears a bit like scum trying to steer a mislynch.

Alright.

The thing is, I don't really see what's so wrong with that. I read through the thread, I noticed what you said and did and found that at that point you were the player who seemed most anti-town in his actions(reason: your anti-lurkers-statement). I then read on and found that Ray had summarised that point fairly well and had added a point that I had missed myself but which made sense. I could've rephrased what Ray said and not quoted him but what's the point? There just wasn't that much more to add.
Besides, I did add a thought of my own. It was hypothetical and weak, but I did do more than just copy-paste Ray's brain.

As for steering towards a mislynch... We're nowhere near that yet and I certainly don't want to get there any time soon. Had you had more votes on you already, I would have withheld my vote. And if you now recieve more votes to put you close to a lynch, I will withdraw mine. We don't want a quicklynch and I certainly won't be the one to give it to you.

My suspicion of you, both at the time of the vote and now, isn't strong enough to actually want you lynched now. The vote, as I said before, is an effective means of getting a response (it worked, right?) and doesn't have to lead to a lynch. My suspicion also isn't weak enough to withdraw my vote. Although you have clarified your LaL-position to a point where it isn't necessarily anti-town anymore and my original reason to suspect you is now less strong, your responses to my accusations have been to criticise me instead (not counting your last post of course, since I asked you to give your opinion and you did). Consider "Have you got any thoughts of your own?" (post 75), and suggesting that I'm aiming for a quicklynch when I asked you to express your opinions (post 121). Misrepresenting my post and trying to shift blame on me are two actions likely to come from scum.

[dimaba]

@dimaba: Or I could just be trying to fish a reaction out of you the same you did with your vote for me. I was attacking you for a reaction, good sir.

Indeed, that could very well be. Which is part of why I'm not convinced enough to want you to be lynched. But I do believe fishing for a reaction as a response to an accusation, and thereby shifting focus away from yourself, is not the same as fishing for a reaction while on the offensive.

@dimaba
I would like to ask you the same question you asked Tracker earlier. If we had to lynch someone right now, who would you lynch?

I would lynch Tracker, as is clear by the fact that I still have my vote on him. You can find my reasons for accusing him in previous posts. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that he is scum, just that if we had to lynch someone now he would be slightly more likely to be scum than the others.

@Everyone I would like to ask if the choice was left to you would you lynch a Lurker who has posted but has not contained anything of value to the town except a few short posts, or someone who is posting but is coming off as scummy, but has some pro town qualities as well.

As you said, it depends on how strong the pro- or anti-town qualities are. I would probably lynch the active player. He/she will have participated in discussion, will have been actively attacked and defended etc. and is therefore more likely to give us information on where other players stand in relation to him/her.
However, if the lurker has clearly been active lurking (e.g. inactive but dropping in immediately (and only) each time someone accuses him of scumlurking, showing that he has enough time available to post regularly and chooses not to) the conclusion would have to be that he is deliberately acting anti-town and that is enough to lynch the sucker on.

@Chronos; Tracker's argument does make some sense in that scum may be more eager to start a bandwagon (since they aren't concerned with wether there is actually enough evidence to lynch the victim). I think that is what he means when he says that starting a bandwagon is suspicious.
But as you say, two votes is hardly a bandwagon so I agree that in the end the point is invalid.

[dimaba]

Indeed, it is not. However, I prefer to defend while attacking, if that makes any sense. Covering myself while directing my own questions to my attacker could very well give me some useful information for a read later on.

That does make sense and you are right that it can give you valuable information. My problem with that in this case was that it seemed that attempting to gain information from me was used as a way to keep me from gaining information on you, if you see what I mean. Asking questions of your attacker is fine, but only if you also answer your attacker's questions. Now that you're doing that, I'm starting to find you less suspicious.

[dimaba]

Hey, dimaba, doesn't lynching somebody because they vote without reason sound rather familiar?
Too familiar.[/color]

Certainly does. Didn't help us much at the time, but they certainly did deserve it.

@Jackabomb: do you feel cdubs' presented reasons are strong enough to make the initial reasonless vote irrelevant?

@Doctor: what scumtells have you noticed about my play other than the would-be bandwagon? I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't see them.

I am also going to

unvote

. I have said earlier that the original scumtells on Tracker (LaL-policy and non-participation) have become less valid and in my last post I also mentioned that my later reason for suspicion (agressive response without answering question) has also become less valid. Tracker is at L-2 I think it's better if I withdraw my vote for now.

[dimaba]

I skimmed page 8

Lordchronos I ask you to read posts you are attempting to discredit.

I think LordChronos' point was: why did you skim page 8 and not page 9, the page the thread was on and the page Tracker and you placed your votes on. You didn't explain that in your post. Mind doing so now?

As for the night kill, I'm not exactly surprised by it. Jackabomb was an active and quite clearly pro-town player and made a number of good points. Wether the kill has anything to do with his remarks on specific players/on Doctor's hammer or not, he was someone scum would like to get rid of.

[dimaba]

I read page 9, there was not a vote count on page nine and tracker voted on page 9 i knew that, however i skimmed page 8 to make sure I wasn't screwing up (I should have read It all over I know) and merely missed the two posts which are quite small where Jacka and Yos voted, which are BOTH on page 8.

I had previoiusly read page 8, but I merely skimmed to make sure.

Ah now I get what you meant. I thought you meant you hadn't read page 9 at all.

[dimaba]

I switched before you even posted...

I voted the person I believed had hammered.

So now that you know that Tracker isn't the one that hammered, what is your reason to keep your vote on him in place?

p.s. did anyone else have problems reaching the forums yesterday?

The site is experience technical difficulties every now and then. We report it in the help forum in the 'White Screen of Senility' thread. Don't worry about it, Mith's hoping to move to PBB3 and a new server soon ~ Hayl

[dimaba]

Well, one person I'm a bit worried about right now is dimba. For one thing, I feel like he hasn't really expressed suspicion on anyone or taken a stand on anything; at one point, he had a vote on Tracker, but then he unvoted, and he hasn't really attacked anyone since (he's made some posts today questioning the doctor, but I'm not really clear if he still suspects the doctor or not). He also never really took any kind of stand on the cdub wagon before cdub got lynched. Dimba seems to me like he might be a scum who's just trying to "fly under the radar" and not get noticed.

You are right that I haven't expressed suspicion on anyone on Day 2 so far. But really, day 2 is only 3 real-life days and 3 pages old so far and I wanted to question several people before making up my mind on my suspicions. We have plenty of time for that.
I took a stands all through day 1, on who to lynch and on wether or not it is smart to lynch lurkers, and only missed the last two pages where cdubs was grilled and lynched.
As for who I expect now... Well although Doctor has done well to explain away any suspicions, he isn't off my radar. My previous (and first) game saw the same situation, and in that game it was scum who quickhammered and came back with 'omg I'm so sorry, I didn't know'. And scum got away with it until the town PR's claimed.
I have a growing and more consistent suspicion of easjo though. Has been throwing around suspicions throughout the game but seems to be echoing points other people have made more than anything, though she did make some points of her own earlier in the game, and sometimes doesn't provide any reasoning at all. Has rarely made an effort to confront or question someone. Drops in irregularly. Doesn't respond/doesn't respond well when questions are asked.
So what I would do is:

vote: easjo

Lord Chronos: seems to be scum hunting, but theres also something there that seems a bit off, dont know what it is but somethings not quite right

Any parts of his posts in particular that you get that feeling from?

[dimaba]

@dimaba
First off, I didn't write that quote that you quoted in your last post, I think that was Yosarian.

Very true. I quoted Yosarian but fucked up the quote tags. He quoted you and I deleted that part but missed the [ quote="LordChronos] part, making it seem like it was your quote.

FTR, correct quote:

Well, one person I'm a bit worried about right now is dimba. For one thing, I feel like he hasn't really expressed suspicion on anyone or taken a stand on anything; at one point, he had a vote on Tracker, but then he unvoted, and he hasn't really attacked anyone since (he's made some posts today questioning the doctor, but I'm not really clear if he still suspects the doctor or not). He also never really took any kind of stand on the cdub wagon before cdub got lynched. Dimba seems to me like he might be a scum who's just trying to "fly under the radar" and not get noticed.

Dimaba, I'm curious as to why one of your reasons for voting easjo you yourself are guilty of. You say she drops in irregularly but then again, I've noticed your posting patterns are incredibly irregular as well. Care to explain?

The irregularity itself I am guilty of, but when I post I try to make them useful. It's the irregularity of the posts combined with the lack of content that makes me think they might be more 'look I'm still here so don't say I'm lurking' than 'I try to help out but I haven't got much time'.
Reasons for my irregularity are studywork, social commitments and limited access when I'm at my parents' house.

While I know there is still suspicion running rampant on me, this feels like you are basically saying that if someone else hits me, that you'll hop on the wagon, while leaving yourself free to throw suspicion on other people in the event that I turn up townie.

If you get hit on I won't be jumping on the wagon. I believe your explanation and the rest of your behaviour has been above suspicion, but past experience does keep me from being 100% convinced you are town. That's what I was saying.

[dimaba]

You took stands through day 1 on who we should lynch? Where?

Discussion on general strategy points like "When to lynch lurkers" is fine, but other then the vote you had on Tracker, I never saw any point where you expressed who it was that you wanted to lynch, and very little on who you thought we shouldn't lynch for that matter, and you dropped the Tracker vote for fairly murky reasons as soon as it looked like it might go somewhere, specifically saying that part of the reason for it was that you didn't want tracker to be at lynch -2. For the most part, most of your posts were made up of vauge, noncommittal comments on people.

I stuck with Tracker for most of Day 1 and all that time I said I thought he should be the one to lynch eventually. That didn't change when I withdrew my vote, as I said I just didn't want to lynch yet because I wasn't certain enough. After I dropped my tracker vote, it took two pages to lynch cdubs. I didn't post on those pages, so there was hardly a chance for me to express new opinions, was there?

I haven't felt the necessity as other people seem to be giving the appropriate questions so there would be no point in asking the same thing.

Yet you found me suspicious when on day 1 I used that same argument to explain why I seconded rayfrost's arguments rather than write it up differently myself?

So basically you're accusing me what you yourself are guilty of? and you're justifying why its okay when it comes to you? at least I said that I'd be unavailable for 48 hours and gave a reason, all of us have commitments outside of this game including me, and when it comes to me I have work and it comes in shifts, at the moment I take what I can get, sometimes it's only 2 hours sometimes it 12 if its going to be longer I try to say 'hey look I'm not gonna be here for awhile' so yes work does make me an irregular poster.

I didn't justify why it's okay to do the same thing you're doing, I pointed out where the things we're doing are different. It's not the irregularity of posts itself I'm worried about. I have the same time problems you have and frankly this game isn't important enough for me to go reply when I get home late at night etc. The difference IMO is the lack of original content.

[dimaba]

The problem is that I really don't see any other post you've made all game that looks like you've been going after people you think are scum or really trying to figure out who the scum are.

I disagree (of course). IMO at least posts 111, 122, 172, 243 and 252 all qualify as either going after who I think is scum or trying to figure out who scum are by asking questions. If you feel that isn't enough I will probably have to be more aggressive in going after scum than I have been.

dimaba's suspicion of easjo seems like OMGUS.

If you think I'm OMGSUS-voting, then:
1) Why didn't I go after easjo when she voted for me on day 1? In fact, I pretty much ignored it...

2) Why did I attack easjo (who hasn't even voted for me on day 2 and whose only mention of me on day 2 before I voted for her was "Dimaba: Ive been suspicious of all along") and not Yosarian (who actually voted for and attacked me)?

[dimaba]

122 is you trying to articulate something you said in post 111
172 is short, something you accused me of as being a scummy thing
243 is short, something you accused me of as being a scummy thing

I'll hand you that point about 122, maybe I shouldn't have listed that one. I put it on to show that I went further than making comments and accusations from the sideline and engaged in serious discussion.

As for the others, it isn't the length of the post that matters but it's what is said in that length of post. I was asking questions to judge the responses and figure out who was scum. What I was accusing you of wasn't making short posts, it was not using the posts you made to present new ideas, question people or start or join a discussion. Wether you do that in 2 lines or 20 I don't care.

[dimaba]

Weren't you saying the opposite when attacking me earlier? that the length of the posts were part of what made you suspicious of me, I believe it was at the same point you were suggesting my irregular posting was something to be suspicious of whilst your irregular posting wasn't.

Short and simple, I wasn't. I said lack of content. Lack of content and short posts aren't necessarily the same thing.

@Ray, that still leaves the question why I didn't do it on day 1 when easjo actually made a point of attacking me. As I said, she only mentioned me once on day 2 and I wasn't even the only one she had a bad feeling about. I don't think that's strong enough to qualify as an attack.

[dimaba]

@eas and Dimaba, why have you two been so focused on each other these last few posts, you have both at least admitted to some degree of hipocrasy, argueing about it isn't getting the town nowhere, lets move on, lest we fall into stagnation letting the scum hide behind this.

Mostly because there wasn't much else to focus on I think. But I agree, we're going in circles here.

@Dimaba what is your personal stance on the other players and reasons why, surely you have some personal suspicions of others that may not be attributed to what has been said by the other members of the town, I'd like to hear them.

Apart from what I think of easjo...

Yosarian: Has been townish all along and makes sense in pretty much everything he says.

Doctor: I like Doctor's posting style/scumhunting style. Not very aggressive but prodding here and there. Made a bad mistake with the hammer, and his FoS-reasoning on Chronos seems a little farfetched atm, but I'm thinking town.

Tracker: What I found suspicious about him on Day 1 is irrelevant now. Probably town

Ray: hasn't been very useful on Day 2 and was quick to come after me when I accused easjo (whereas everyone else pretty much kept their distance). Possibly scum

Chronos: Leaning towards town, although Doctor does have a point about lack of base for accusing him of putting words in peoples' mouth

Have I missed anyone?

I still don't see how I'm being a hypocrit btw, but that's probably my fault.

[dimaba]

On a side note; one thing we want to be sure of today is that if a person is put to lynch -1, that they be given a chance to claim if they wish to do so before they are lynched. We don't want to repeat what happened yesterday, or we might lose a pro-town power role without even knowing it.

Quoted for importance.

My vote isn't going to change either. We're 10 days from the deadline now so it's probably time to think about some serious voting.

[dimaba]

I'm a simple Townie.

@lynch/no lynch: always lynch IMO. The benefit of possibly saving a townie doesn't outweigh the lost chance to gain information.

[dimaba]

I agree with Yos that lying as town is not the thing to do normally.
However, I see some situations where it's excusable and possibly smarter than claiming correctly.

Say I'm a cop who wasn't roleblocked (so doesn't know if there's a doc to save him from a nk) and investigated Jackabomb on night 1. I'd have nothing useful to report so town would gain hardly anything by my claim. Then if I can't survive without claiming but can survive with a simple townie claim, the town would still get a chance to lynch scum and I'd have a chance to get some useful information. The cost would be a bit of misinformation for other townies. I think you'd have to claim correctly right after the night and present your information, not keep lying constantly, so you don't misguide town continuously. But if you do that, it might not be the worst idea in the world. Or is there some downside I'm not seeing other than that lying is unethical and people might find your second claim questionable?

I'll say it again though: I'm not a power role, just a basic townie.

[dimaba]

hmm, but if you carried out ther above scenario dimaba, the town may not trust you when you came out with the truth, they may be lead to believe that you are making claims to appear on the town side, even though in the above scenario you are on their side.

As I said...

...people might find your second claim questionable

I agree with you that it's very risky to do and if I were a cop I would do exactly as you suggested, I was just saying that there are situations where it could be tempting to try a fake claim and it might even turn out alright.

[dimaba]

Mmm, I can understand where it may come in use, but those circumstances are going to be few and far between, even then its going to be a gamble. IMO anyway

I agree

[dimaba]

Problem 1 with that: A townie claim should never, ever help you survive. If you would be lynched if you refuse to claim, you should also be lynched with a townie claim; lying and claiming townie should do you absolutly no good here.

I disagree. Let's say there are several people under equal suspicion and they're all asked to claim. Claiming townie = a reasonable chance to escape lynch, while refusing to claim will draw discussion to you etc. and IMO make a lynch more likely.

But since we agree that it's almost always a bad idea it's pretty much a non-discussion and this is the last Ã

[dimaba]

In that case, that would be bad play on the part of the town. There's no good reason for pro-town people to look more favorably on someone who claims townie then on someone who has not claimed; in fact, all claiming townie really does is tell the town that that person is a "safe lynch".

I'm actually of the opinion that a vanilla townie should never claim at all in most games, but a lot of people disagree with me on that one.

Meh, tbh I think not claiming is just obstructing play. You'll usually be asked to claim anyway and not doing so is just going to drag things on as everybody waits for your reply. They're not going to just ignore your unwillingness to answer; and, since PR's will usually claim anyway when it looks like they're going to get lynched, not claming still tells town you're a safe lynch.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of the game and good luck to the rest of my fellow townies.

[dimaba]

Good game everyone. I had fun. Well played to the mob. I was feeling pretty sure about a Ray and easjo scum team, hadn't picked up Yos' scummyness at all.