Newbie 167 - Game over

[mathcam]

It's probably his birthday.

FOS: Violent

for being 78 years old. Old people are scummy.

Cam

[mathcam]

Upgrade to

Vote: Violent

for not having posted yet. Fritzler's my second choice.

Cam

[mathcam]

My top two suspicions right now are Fritzler and giricredwolf...Fritlzer just from a vibe, and wolf from his post requesting claims so immediately. A defense of this request might alleviate this suspicion however...I await that. In any case,

Unvote: Violent

.

Cam

[mathcam]

I thought that was pretty clear. You're my second choice, so there's no sense in voting for you when someone else is more suspicious. And I was giving giric a chance to explain himself before putting the vote on.

But the fact that you've now switched over to a bandwagon you expect to get bigger (since I've already stated my intentions to join it) makes you all the more scummier. I'm still going to wait for a post form giric before voting.

Cam

[mathcam]

Giric, while I concede that Brian did err when he said you advocated three claims, you

did

at advocate at least one, so I think the twisting if your words was not quite as exaggerated as you seem to suggest. I'm quite willing to take your word that this is how you learned to play mafia, but it doesn't totally let you off the hook. It's still to the mafia's advantage to know where the power roles are. For example, you wrote

If they're all three townies? Great, wonderful. That leaves four of us that are possibly scum.

But just because they

claimed

townies doesn't mean they

are

townies. We'll have accomplished very little with eliciting three townie claims, while on the other hand, the mafia has learned a great deal about where the town's power roles lie. I'm just advocating that you be wary of pushing claims...there are usually far more benefits for the mafia that there are for the town.

Finally:

I was lead to believe that this game was played one way, and now you're directly telling me it isn't.

If there's one thing I hope you'll see in your first few games here, there's nowhere near

one

way of playing this game. That's part of its appeal...even very good players differ wildly on how they approach and play the game.

I'm willing to leave Giric alone for now...while his super-defensiveness could just as easily be from a frustrated mafia as a frustrated townie, I tend to lean toward townie. That leaves me with

Vote: Fritzler.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, and

I probably am. Brian will attend, I suck. Mathcam prob will too.

Hardly.

Cam

[mathcam]

My initial money is on ViolentJ as scum.

I think the doc, if we have one, should come out. There's no sense in holding on to information in a lynch-or-lose situation.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm not sure why, but that posted rocketed Passdog up in the suspiciousness category, making Violent and Passdog as my top 2 choices. I'll try to be a little bit clearer why, when I'm not in quite such a rush.

Post, people!

Cam

[mathcam]

this will be my last post trying to defend my self

Whoa, why? You refuse to defend yourself after this post? That seem awfully belligerent, doesn't it?

And ViolentJ, some punctuation would be nice. It's very hard to parse your posts some times.

Cam

[mathcam]

Heh. I just did a re-read, and Fritzler stands out as the scummiest to me.

I think that more often that not, it's the lurkers in these newbie games that we have to be wary of.

FOS: Tyfo

for that. Where are you?

Cam

[mathcam]

I think Violent's moving down on my scumometer, actually. Brian articulated well what I found scummy about Passdog's last post, and now it looks like he's comfortably taking advantage of Violent's inability to explain his thoughts. It's as if he's sitting back and laughing, "Ha ha, Violent, you'll never get people to lynch me if you act like this." I might be ready to vote for Passdog.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm just reading a frustrated townie vibe from him, rather than a belligerent mafia vibe.

I don't think that is entirely fair.

Heh. Fairness is not really something that comes into play when deciding whether or not you find someone scummy. In any case, it's not like I was accusing you of acting inappropriately (

that

would be unfair), just that one possible interpretation of your actions was that you were scum.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well...you yourself haven't really contributed since last Monday,

including

that last post. Maybe a summary of your current thoughts would be useful here?

Cam

[mathcam]

That's hardly an argument, Violent. You're saying that your proof that you're not scum is that "If I were scum, I would have killed passdog."? First of all, you could have chosen not to kill him just so that you could make that argument. Second of all, your scum partner could have made the choice of who to kill and told you to make this argument.

Cam

[mathcam]

I, for one, do not think Violent is scum. Passdog has some scumminess points for attacking someone I don't think is scum, especially since that person doesn't seem, well, let's just say loquatious, to defend himself. Brian has scumminess points for the exact same reason, and for being a big lurker-head all game.

Tyfo, while not lurking, seems to be quite content to sit back and let whomever be lynched. There's kind of a scummy nonchalance feeling about him.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yay, participation!

Okay, we might be able to mine a lot of information from the current vote count, given that there's no lynch. I'll be the first admit that much of what I'm about to write is very much a "jump to conclusion" type of argument, but let's see where it goes.

1 ViolentJ1427 (BrianMcQueso)
1 Passdog (ViolentJ1427)

Not voting: mathcam, Passdog, Tyfo

1) mathcam and Passdog are not scum together. If they were, they could have finished off Violent, as they've both been relatively active.

Hm, that's about it, actually. I thought I was going to be able to eliminate more (and

that

one I already knew...), but since Tyfo's been pretty inactive, it's hard to rule him out from anything.

If I had to pick right now, it'd be Tyfo/Passdog.
Cam

[mathcam]

Well, we're in a lynch-or-lose scenario, so no lynch loses the game for us.

I think we should each put down our top two suspicions, and see where that takes us.

Also, in case it's not clear, if we have a doc, they should definitely reveal themselves.

Cam

[mathcam]

Violent: If you're going to get frustrated every time suspects you, this is not the game for you. Passdog does

not

have to "leve you alone" if he thinks you're the most suspicious. Further, I don't think anyone here would feel stupid if we lynched you and you turned out not to be scum...just saying that you're not scum is hardly an effective way of convincing us. Finally, punctuation is your friend. I highly encourage you to use it.

Now, on to the game: I'm not sure what to make of the fact that only two people are suspected of being scum. I feel like more often than not in these situations, scum is sitting quietly in the background, laughing that noone suspects them. Case in point, it's (to me, at least) a near certainty that Passdog and Violent are not scum together. This means that, from my point of view, one of Pass/Violent is scum with one of Brian/Tyfo,

or

there's the extra possibly that Brian and Tyfo are scum together. From probabilities, therefore, Brian and Tyfo seem to make the better lynch candidates. Hmm.

Cam

[mathcam]

I was pretty certain of Passdog/Violent just because of their interactions today. True, it could be an intentional fake fight, but it just doesn't have that feel.

Cam

[mathcam]

Plus, given the large amounts of inactivity, I'm not quite yet willing to rule out any of the pairings arising from the "If they were both scum together, they could have won by now." This obviously doesn't hold if one of the two wasn't around for a long time.

Cam

[mathcam]

We are, however, all around now (or have been), votes are the same as when there was no activity, and the lynch could have been achieved already - the mafia could have won the game.

As a result I'm going to FoS mathcam for using craplogic. As a supposedly experienced player making this logical leap shouldn't be a problem. You are either not thinking or purposefully ignoring the information you have to make one of us swing.

This isn't quite right. For the speedlynch to work, both mafia would have to be on

at the same time.

If one of them puts a second vote on, we a) Become more suspicious of that person, and b) Try to convince the first voter to unvote until we can discuss it. So it's a risky play if your scum partner isn't around.

And you're wrong about the doc. Right now, hoping for a doc-protect is pretty silly. If we lynch correctly and the doc makes a protect, our correct play is to no lynch anyway, and the doc will die anyway. The slight benefit is that we get a confirmed innocent the next day. By having the doc reveal themselves today, not only do we know one person to definitely not lynch (meaning that the townies have a 2/3 chance of hitting scum), but it also helps us narrow down possible scum pairings. In short, the information we get from knowing the doc outweights the loss of the doc dying.

There was probably a lot of overlap with Brian's comments there, but oh well.

Cam

[mathcam]

Can anyone explain to me the advantages here for the town?

Oh. Let me rephrase the "And you're wrong about the doc" with "Sure! Here's something to think about concerning the doc."

Cam

[mathcam]

Don't you think the mafia would risk it anyway?

It's certainly possible. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to eliminate the possibility of a pairing based on that type of argument. I'd probably concede that it might make such a pairing slightly less plausible.

In any case, Passdog has moved way down my suspicion list. As to Violent, I just think he sounds too genuine to be lying...of course, this is

always

the difficulty of playing with newbies. They have the advantage of being able to choose any play-style they want, depending on the mood of the game, and have it be unquestioned.

However, at this point, if I don't think Violent is scum, then this means I'm settling on the Brian/Tyfo pairing as the only remaining possibility. I'm not sure how plausible this seems. Hmm.

Cam

[mathcam]

Goin' with my gut.

Vote: Brian McQueso.

His next-to-last post seemed too relaxed, he's been non-committal all day, and that last post seemed...maybe flippant? I know that wasn't very well explained, but hey, that's why I called it a gut feeling.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, we can now rule out a few more pairings.

mathcam/Brian
mathcam/Passdog
mathcam/Tyfo

are no longer viable. If Tyfo posts and doesn't lynch, we'll have another set. I'm just still not buying the Violent argument. I guess only time, and probably Tyfo, will tell whether I'm right or not.

Cam

[mathcam]

You give no reason why any of those groups should be ruled out.

Sorry, I thought this was clear. If I were scum with anyone but ViolentJ, I could have won the game with that post by killing him off. Since I didn't, I'm not scum.

Does that make sense?

Cam

[mathcam]

Nope, nor was I claiming to be. In fact, if I were any of you, I'd be

most

suspicious of the mathcam/Violent pairing, because I've been defending him so hard all day.

Now maybe Tyfo was just hedging his bets, but that sure didn't sound like a man who had just won the game.

I guess we'll see.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mathcam: Why shouldn't we lynch you?

Well, I'd say primarily because Brian McQueso is scum. Though I feel pretty stupid about yesterday (with regards to Violent), at least I ended up with my vote on a scum.

But I suppose that's probably not enough, so...

As for my defense, there's not a whole lot of reasons why I'd be defending my scum partner quite so vigorously. Despite what Brian said in his last post, I have every business spending that much effort defending someone if I thnk they're the wrong lynch for the day. This is not only my business, but my repsonsibility as a townie. Surely if I were scum with him, I'd know that he was a likely lynch for the day, and that I might able to score some major innocent points by going after him. Also consider

Mathcam, you've spent a lot of time defending a player you can't be sure is innocent. Either you're foolish, or you're backing your scum partner. In fact, I'm almost positive you're the other mafioso. FoS: Mathcam.

To me, this is a visible chink in Brian's otherwise very solid armor of good appearance. Despite the fact that this post ocurred before the lynch, there's absolutely no doubt in this statement that Brian is

absolutely sure[/u] that Violent is scum, referring to me as "the other mafioso." Not even you, Passdog, the most vehement of the anti-Violents, were positive about his alleigance, even by the time you cast your vote:

If he isn't mafia I'm sure we'll find out who is soon.

There's very little doubt in my mind.

Vote: Brian McQueso,

just as I did yesterday. If I've just handed vectory to a scum passdog, this'll have to go down in history as my worst performance in a newbie game ever. (And, obviously, an excellent performance from Passdog and Violent).

Cam

[mathcam]

Hold on.

Unvote: Brian McQueso.

[mathcam]

Question: How on earth did Passdog survive the night if he's not scum?

The only explanation I can think of is that the mafia were worried that Tyfo was a doctor, but why wouldn't they have that same concern of passdog? If anything, I think Passdog's posts about the doc revealing make him

more

likely to be the doc than Tyfo. Hmm.

Cam

[mathcam]

At the end of yesterday, if there was one person I was pretty sure wouldn't be scum with ViolentJ, it would have been Passdog. That, to me, makes him the most likely nightkill, since he would be considered the most innocent today. But, of course, he didn't die, leaving the possibilities that either the mafia didn't think of this (or intentionally left him alive for this reason), or that Passdog is mafia.

Cam

[mathcam]

Did that make sense, Brian?

Passdog?

Cam

[mathcam]

If you're scum, that was a pretty excellent post, Brian.

Maybe passdog needs a prod?

Cam

[mathcam]

Post 151: Passdog suspiciously avoids answering any of mathcam's questions/concerns.

Seriously, if you've been following along for a

week

and couldn't take the time to address that issue in a quick post, I hardly see how can you say that "reveals little about any player."

Cam

[mathcam]

Not really...I certainly see why I get scumminess points for defending Violent yesterday. I have little to say except that I thought he was innocent.

I'm convinced again.

Vote: Brian McQueso.

Cam

[mathcam]

When he posted post 149, I thought I had passed his test and was in the clear. Guess I was wrong.

The thing is that I was

positive

you were scum over the previous night, which you can probably see from my posts in the morning. It wasn't until I placed the vote on you that I began to worry that maybe I had been a little too hasty. The post referenced in 149 was really good, Brian, so it's only testament to my respect for you as a player that I could bring myself to believe you would post that as a scum as well as as a townie. I decided my convictions from the night before were just too strong to ignore.

Passdog: No suggestions at all. You played the game very well.

Cam

[mathcam]

p.s. Thanks for modding, inHim! That was one of the better newbie games I've played in...(except for the massive day-3 lurking all around...)

Cam

[mathcam]

Ha ha, whoops. Sorry, Phoebus...inHim is modding my other newbie game.

Cam

[mathcam]

Last post.