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

[Jackabomb]

Welcome, then, newbies of Game number...whatever this is. Anyway, I am your Semi-experienced player. That is, I have played at least two games on this site. Rayfrost is the other one and Yossarian2 is the IC. Thank you, Haylen, for making me a wiki page. Now I can record my great(and not so great) legacy. Tracker, is the site you refer to www.epicmafia.com?

Wow. I didn't even notice dimaba was here. He's the only one I've played with before.

I've decided to vote Rayfrost because he enters himself into every single game in the newbie queue, making it hard for common-folk like me to get a game in edgewise. I think Dimaba is fine at L-3, he'll post eventually.

Vote: Rayfrost

That said and done, Good luck! (Because if your scum, you're going to need it. If you're town...well it's just a nice thing to kick the game off with.)

[Jackabomb]

Jackabomb is obv scumbuddies with Haylen.

Isn't Haylen our moderator? Are you serious about your chainsaw accusation or joke/RVS/reaction testing? As far as I can tell, if you're serious, you are accusing me of chainsaw-defending haylen.

I live in Texas, Fort Hood.

[Jackabomb]

Sorry then.

Dimaba! Get a move on and post.

[Jackabomb]

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.

QTF.

Personally, I think lurkers are best dealt with by bandwagon-voting them up to, but not exceeding L-2. L-1 is too risky that someone will quickhammer. Normally, quickhammering isn't too bad for the town. It is a major scumtell and gives loads of information about the perpetrator. However, the lurker, as stated by Rayfrost, hasn't interacted with anyone, so it wouldn't give nearly enough information. Lynching lurkers is a terrible idea. He could very well be in the hospital, for all we know, or some other serious deal in real life that he couldn't possibly have predicted. Thus, lynching might not be such a great idea. Having lurkers replaced, especially now, when they haven't said anything or made any sort of reputation for themselves, is better than doing it later.

[Jackabomb]

Mod, could you fix my tags, please? Thanks.

Done ^.^ ~ Haylz

[Jackabomb]

You don't combat anti-town behavior with more of the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. If there's nothing interesting to say, I either: a. Go do something else. Or b. Read back and look for a new angle on old material. Never box your mind in.

Eh, depends on your view. When I posted that there was literally no one online to pressure and I had no useful reads from anyone else. It's just the time of day and I had already posted my thoughts enough. In short, there was nothing to stimulate conversation at the time.

I honestly don't see what view has to do with it. Somebody doesn't have to be online for you to pressure them. A word to the wise, You're never done posting your thoughts for the day. When there's nothing to stimulate conversion, don't point out the lull, or if you do, that automatically obliges you to fill it.

[Jackabomb]

However, this may not satisfy ray. Even by my reckoning, you still have some explaining to do for his second point. What made you think Lynching lurkers who haven't posted would be a good idea?

[Jackabomb]

Surely you have some opinions you want to voice, or advice to offer? What's your take on Tracker, for instance?

[Jackabomb]

I'm sorry, dimaba.

A

post doesn't cut it, mate. Move it and post!

Doctor, aggression works slightly better when you aren't doing it to someone who isn't there. It also helps to talk to the audience(the rest of the town) more than to the person.

[Jackabomb]

Well, I personally like the lynch all lurkers policy. Problem is, in a newbie game there are Townies that lurk because they 'don't know what to say'. Not an excuse, IMO, since it mixes up the game pretty good.

I said I would support it if it came down to it. I never said it was a good idea.

I beg to differ. You only started calling a last resort when it came under fire. And the above post looks an awful lot like calling it a good idea, if you ask me.

[Jackabomb]

Not an excuse, IMO

I said I liked it, but then if you notice I said there was a glaring problem with it,

Need I say more?

My point is, I never NOT called it a last resort.

Ah. True. However, this brings up my next question. Why did you feel we were at our "last resort" for a lynch on page 3?

[Jackabomb]

I see. I, for one, feel the subject has thoroughly explained all suspicious actions and answered all relevant question in adequate manner. Now that we're done with that, I'd like the scum to claim as such, if you don't mind.

Anyway, I hope to see a change in said 'personal feelings'. They're not as pro-town as they ought to be.

[Jackabomb]

I've read his wiki. I don't get it.

[Jackabomb]

I assure you, I'm not. What makes you think that?
I didn't know Zeenon played here. I have a link to the site I first started playing at, if you want proof. There's no registered Zeenon there.

[Jackabomb]

I'm only posting in red because blue is off-limits in this game. Odd coincidence.

[Jackabomb]

Signing off for tonight.

[Jackabomb]

Yikes, I'm away for the night and all this happens.

QTF. I know exactly what you mean, mate.

Cdubs, I want an explanation in your next post. Until then, my vote lies with you.

Whoever asked if "you would rather lynch an active lurker or an active player who appears scummy?", It depends on how scummy. I would generally choose the active, though.

He appeared out of the blue and used 90% of RayFrost's argument against me. It could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch, and obviously doing that is scummy. Even if he believes in the cockles of his little heart I am scum and he is truly Town, at the very least starting to turn a vote into a wagon is suspicous.

Or it could be normal bandwagoning. I don't actually mind a bandwagon on a suspicious person, even if I don't personally suspect them. I'm not likely to hop on a wagon I don't find suspicious, of course, but if I can see a reasonable interpretation of a player's actions as scum, I don't mind people who are suspicious of him making a bandwagon on him, even if I don't personally think he's mafia.

Now, I don't endorse lynching someone in bandwagon fashion. With a bandwagon, not everybody who joins has to provide their own reasons or additional arguments. It is helpful, but not necessary. Lynching in this fashion, is totally unacceptable, and my FOS and probably vote as well go to whoever quickhammered, as it is called, the next day.

Oh, it generally isn't a good idea to tell your subject that you're voting them for a reaction. It invalidates the results of the reaction test.

[Jackabomb]

@Chronos: Let's see if I can try to explain this better: if a bandwagon is started and the person being wagon'd turns out to be Town, then everyone that contributed to the bandwagon would be suspect. Also, bandwagons can snowball rather easily, so 2 votes can turn into 3, then 3 into 4...see where I'm going with this? Bandwagons aren't inherently wrong, but it can be rather easy to get them to snowball out of control. That's why I'm especially wary of possible wagons starting on the first or second page.

Actually, the only people on the bandwagon who would be most suspect are: a)The fifth voter, if the vote had been a quicklynch or a vote in spite of the defendant having produced evidence sufficient to negate the arguments against him.

b)Anyone who had voted without a reason at all. People who were active when negating evidence was produced, yet did not heed it.

c)Someone who had driven the wagon on shaky logic.

I said I would do this earlier, but forgot.

Unvote;
Vote: cdubs

[Jackabomb]

Mind refreshing my memory as to why you are voting Tracker? The LAL, right? Or was there more. I don't quite recall.

[Jackabomb]

I'm ashamed of Yos2.

unvote

vote: tracker

1. Fakeclaiming in his name. ( )

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.

Were some of these arguments not refuted or their scumtells nullified? I was under the impression that all Tracker's been doing since you posted that was defending himself.
Oh. Number 4: Backpedaling when he came under fire for number 2.

[Jackabomb]

Doctor, why the unvote? Who are your scum choices as of right now, if you had to kill two people, who would you choose and why? My current choices would cdubs and Dimaba. The Tracker barely avoided dimaba's position, but he's been posting more and seemed able to take constructive criticism.

[Jackabomb]

It's the very same fact that cdubs has posted so little that causes me to suspect him. He only made one post the entire game. He totally wins the Lurkiest player award so far. His only post was trash besides. A random vote, even though RVS has been over for a while. And calling it a random vote is giving him the benefit of doubt already in my eyes. The other possibility is that he really meant his vote, but didn't provide any reason. I believe that to be a rather large scumtell.

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

[Jackabomb]

I'm not irked so much by his lurking, but by his reason-less vote.

[Jackabomb]

Anti town is the definition of scummy.

Sorry to rain on your parade, mac, but this just isn't true. It is quite possible to be anti-town without being scum. It's very common in newbie games, actually. Right now, I'm getting a particularly anti-town read off of you, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're scum, now does it? If you want to know why:

Your very first post, you voted a guy without any reason whatsoever. The only possible answers are that you were scum hoping to gain from the wagon that had been going on earlier...Or that you told the truth in your explanation.

However, if this is the case, it means you posted without reading the game thread at all. Most assuredly anti-town, and something I think is a bit more likely to come from scum than from town.

His explanation was far too convenient anyway. My vote stays put for now.

[Jackabomb]

Oh, and my vote is not yet FTL.

[Jackabomb]

EBWOB AS APPLICABLE TO POST 187:

The only possible answers are that you were scum hoping to gain from the wagon that had been going on earlier

While this remains a point of argument, I have an additional point very similar. Originally I was thinking more of this point than the other, so things are slightly awkward:

I think Cdubs was looking for an opportunistic scum lynch with Tracker. Yosarian has also displayed a degree of vote hopping, however he provides an amount of reason for most of his votes. Cdubs only sounds like Revenge Vote.

[Jackabomb]

Yes, but not willy-nilly. Sorry about the misconception. Disregard.

[Jackabomb]

Good Night! Did you really do that? You sir, have earned yourself a significant fos, no matter how cdubs flips. Did I specifically say:"I'm not voting FTL yet"? Didn't I say that when I voted cdubs? Yes, I did.

In case you don't know why I'm angry, I'll tell you.

That vote you just cast....

Was the ===[ ]

[Jackabomb]

It wasn't. It was the fifth. It's too late anyway. The hammer was already cast.


Dimaba, this is looking even more familiar now, eh?....talk about daja vu.

[Jackabomb]

Nobody has anything to say about me?
/sadness

This looks like a perfect win.

[Jackabomb]

I haven't looked at this topic much since I died, so I don't have much to say.
Congratulations on the perfect win.

Oh, yeah. Next time, keep a better count of who has what votes. That way you won't accidentally hammer.