Newbie 523: (Game over!)

[Sint]

/confirm

[Sint]

Morning everyone.

I don't randomvote either.

reach:

I want to see if anything suspicious comes up.

What if we all do the same?

[Sint]

or Sint, who has said as little as possible in a post, pretty much checking in and nothing else. Lurking is always a questionable play style in my eyes.

I'd like to call it a dayjob. Normally I'm gone from 7am to 6pm, add to that regular day life = (alternating) evenings. Yet, it seems this thread grows quickly. My last game was growing by average of 4 posts a day...
Anyway, you wanted to get the discussion going because I only checked in. However you failed to notice that I actually tried to do the same with my post. I asked reach a question which reach failed to answer. We're not all as straight forward as you are, the key in the first game I played here was to grow a feel on people and try and catch them in their words. He said he'd ''see if anything suspicious comes up'', but if we all do that (like you also noted) we won't get very far. So I asked him what would happen then.

Now.. reach, what the .. was that L-1 about? (L-1 = 1 vote to lynch) You don't reason it, you try to quicklynch me, you even sound like you want to lynch me. I'm willing to dismiss it as bad play but I'd like you to adress this too. Think what would happen if you'd lynched me.

Now to make it interesting:
IMO reach and painkitten cannot be the mafia together. If they were pinkkitten could've quicklynched me, blame it on bad lurking like someone else suggested or even on being new to the site and try to take it home on day 2. (they might've lost one on day 2 getting the game to day 3, but it's an instant 2 townie kill.. I think the mafia would've taken that any time.)

Before anything else, pinkkitten if you'd have to choose right now on who'd the mafia pair would be. Who'd be it?

note to self - check notes

[Sint]

I had hoped you'd just pick someone and ask a simular question (but a little diffrent) like I did, because asking everyone the same question gives people the chance to hide out in eachothers words.

Now the reason why I asked you who you'd pick: because I found something curious about your wordings. Brett made a random vote at first, no big deal there, that's pretty normal. Yet his second vote was NOT random. He voted for me and even used an elimination process to get to my name. He was going for a non-voter (that's pink, quag, reach and me), who was around a while (that's quag or me), ''and should either have another means of creating discussion, or should realize random voting usually works out well'' (now my guess is he picked me because I posted once and quag twice, although admittedly he could've picked quag too). So IMO there's nothing random there. He even stated he was picking the name to make a push for conversation, another reason to vote someone; doesn't matter if it's the second vote because it's 4 to lynch anyway.

Yet you (pink) dismiss it as random, not once, but four times (33, 39, 56, 62 before my question) hence I wanted to know what you ment with post 62 but your explanation in 64:

Brett voted for you as a 'random vote' hours after the vote count was posted and it was shown that you had a vote. plus he switched his random vote... who does that.

Isn't right either. First off, it wasn't a random vote, it doesn't matter that it's after a postcount because it's the second vote and if you want to push people one vote alone might not do it and stop saying he switched his random vote. para said it wasn't random in post 60 and you basically agree in 62 (oops I'm tired), yet when I asked about it you go back in 64 to saying it was a random vote. It just doesn't add up.

I will let brett come along and say something on this story, but I'm quite sure he'll agree with me.

So your hunting for brett seems very oppertunistic to me, pushing him for the wrong reasons and clinging on to them when essentially agreeing it doesn't fit. Now that you voted for reach instead of brett makes me think too.. you're pushing brett but reach comes along and makes a bad play / suspicious play, so you vote for him. Yet not immediately. You FOS him forst in 53 and vote for him later on

while he hasn't posted in between

(not only that, no one posted something on his L-1). Seems too eager to me. You FOS someone because you think he's suspicious, not to vote only

half an hour

later when nothing has changed.

Now to answer the question, the scum pair I'd pick right now is pinkkitten and someone who hasn't been so vocal, so quag or para. quag more likely then para then because pink and para voted reach in consequtive posts. brett could be, for scum can attack eachother for trying to look like being on opposing sides and broken could be too, being clever looking pro-town with his unvote. Yet on all of them I haven't found any half decent leads and like I said I would be very surprised if pink is scum with reach.

FOS

pinkkitten

[Sint]

hehe, go go posting at the same time (quag posted while I was typing), nothing changed yet quag: over eager town or oppertunistic mafia, which would you rather have?

[Sint]

Its ok that you don't have a problem with someone voting for you, in fact its a good thing, but theres a big difference between defending someones right to vote for you and defending someones vote. Instead of trying to prove your innocence, you are defending someone else's non-random vote, or, in other words, you are agreeing with someone's thoughts that you are guilty. Now this would seem unusual for pro-town and scum players, but it would be much more likely from a mafia player who is concerned not only of their own survival, but that of their partner. This raises my suspicions towards both you and Brett.

That's bull. I'm not defending his vote nor his right to vote anywhere. I explained why his vote wasn't random which was the point of my story. Can you point out specifically where I agreed with him or where I defended his vote? I can't find it. In fact, I stated in post 63 that I found the reasoning brett used flawed because I actually was trying to start conversation. Yet that was not what the piece you quoted was about. And even if it was good reasoning, why wouldn't I be able to agree with it? He called me a lurker, big deal. Yeah, that really was me ''agreeing with someone's thoughts that I'm guilty'' alright.. guilty of what..

Doesn't really say anything about your guilt, I'd just like to say that this is a really weak argument. Correcting somebody about calling a non-random vote random is ok, but someone calling a vote random is hardly a reason to suspect them of being mafia.

Oh I said it was a reason to call her mafia? No, I said it didn't add up. Now that part combined with the other things I posted is reason enough for me to FOS. Yet you pick out one small part and discredit it.

I'd like you to try again. Other then that, I'm waiting for pink and reach's replies.

( leaving this part in as a note: )

You sound a little too sure of Sint's innocence and seem to be buddying up with him. Town players should be suspicious of everyone, the only people who know anything about the other players are mafia. To me, you two seem likely to be partners.

[Sint]

Okay guys, fuel on the fire. I'll use this post to throw out stuff I've seen and don't agree with / find suspicious.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, but I don't see why you would even need to make such a big deal about it if your only problem was that she called a non-random vote random. Just explain to her that the vote had a reason. It just seemed like you suspected her because of it, seeing as in the same post you cast a FoS at her. I know you had other reasons, but the first reason doesn't really seem like a reason at all, all she did was say the post was random. Also, I wasn't trying to pick one small part and discredit your whole post, I only had a problem with the parts I commented on.

Wrong. Words is all we have when playing on the forum. It is essential we look for slip-ups, explain everything we do and build cases. Yes then, if you pick a small part of a bigger post, it will look like it wasn't enough grounds to FOS but doing so it just wrong. I gave multiple reasons to why I FOS'd and picking only a small bit of it isn't well played.

The vote was not random, but I really think too much of a deal is being made out of whether someone though the vote was random or not. I think we've established that the target of the vote was chosen for a reason, can we move on soon?

This is wrong too. Pushing people on for clarification is the only way to see where they stand. Not only do you center the last page of discussion to a single subject (if the vote was random or not) and by that gloss over quite a bit of other interesting information, you also ask for people to ''move on''. Are you getting tired of people pushing your mafia buddy? Afraid she'll slip up?

---

woah. just got back on, and i see that people find me suspicious. I guess that my suspicion comes from the fact that this is my first time playing and I realize that bandwagoning is a bad idea now.
unvote: Sint
I'm not trying to be scummy, and believe me if you will that I am not scummy. chalk down the "I'll make it interesting" to inexperience.
that's my defense, and remember that being overly defensive is not a grounds for suspicion.
To be honest I'm actually most suspicious of the kitten partly because of her arguments and because she's a woman (jk).

This is rediculous.

Oh my, people find me suspicious for voting, I'll unvote then. I've learned from my mistake people! I'm town! I'm inexperienced, which is my defence. Take it or leave it.

What are we suppose to do with this post? Looks to me like you're saying ''uh oh I messed, but I'm inexperienced, so water under the bridge?'' which is a horrible defence. Not only are you not contributing anything to the current discussion, you're also giving us a choice to make: oh he's new so I'll believe him, or, oh it's a ploy so he's mafia. Also, saying that being overly defencive isn't a ground for suspicion is a weird thing to say because 1) you're not being overly defencive and 2) it is a ground to be suspicious of someone (IMO).
What's even more amusing is that pink basically says ''oh ok, that's all good, unvote'' in her respons to that. I mean.. what?
----

And I'll remove my vote, as you request, but then I don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence of me vote hopping.

That's crap. Are you trying to get on a good side of someone? You vote for who you find suspicious. You unvote because that person isn't the most suspicious anymore. Not because someone else asks you (or insinuates so). Also unvoting because you ''don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence'' again is also very wrong.

I did something with which you guys don't agree, but now I'm undoing it so you guys have nothing on me ok?

----

some straight questions
pink, did you or did you not agree with para (post 60) in post 62 that the vote brett made was not random.
pink, why did you FOS reach (post 53) but vote for him only half an hour later without getting a respons from him or anyone on his L-1?
scraps, why did you ask everyone to move on? And if we move on, what should we move on to?
reach / brett, any thoughts on what I wrote above?

[Sint]

I'm going to go with, I was pushed for something suspicious that I did on accident and so i took it back.

No you didn't. You did not vote by accident, you voted to make it interesting. You deliberately bandwagoned, which you even admitted:

I guess that my suspicion comes from the fact that this is my first time playing and I realize that bandwagoning is a bad idea now.

Saying you voted or pushed by accident is a blatant lie. Since that's the only ''defence'' you've given I'm going to

vote reach

To make it clear this is a pressure vote. I'd like you to explain yourself properly and give some insight or suspicion on ongoing things.

---

Don't apologize for "taking the discussion to something else." If it's important, people will talk about it. If not, then it'll get dismissed.

I agree, but I don't in this case. If it's interesting people will talk about something, if not then not. Yet someone actually asking to change topics (or move on or whatever) makes me think that person or all of us have something to gain by a new topic, or that that person has something to do with the old topic.

[Sint]

Yeah ok received the prod, but I was reading the thread and waiting for something to reply to. Nothing has changed since my last post. reach's ''defence'' in post 118 and 119 is rediculous so my feelings towards him haven't changed and although the vote on para is interesting I will refrain from commenting on it.

[Sint]

I don't have much time now but this won't do. We're repeating eachother saying we aren't getting very far instead of trying to get another conversation going. I agree that I did it too. I'll be quick and bold about this, see if this sparks it back up.

pink: all over the place, mildly suspicious, could've hammered but didn't. Didn't bring a lot of stuff to the table.

reach: somewhat quiet, pretty suspicious, bad L-1, no defence, not a whole lot to back anything up.

brett: somewhat vocal, not that suspicious, pretty good logic.

broken: somewhat vocal, not that suspicious, comes back around, at first it seemed you didn't contribute a lot but it picked up after page 3.

quag: somewhat quiet, somewhat suspicious, not contributed much, voted for para with reasons that could apply to himself too.

para: pretty quiet, somewhat suspicious, not contributed much.

That the IC's are not contributing much makes me think one of them is mafia. You are the more experienced players, you can pick up on tells etc quicker. Seeing how the conversation is lacking, I think that has to do with you two not carrying it more. There could be a reason for not wanted to carry the conversation more.

Besides that, reach still seems most suspicious and after that pink.

I have a party tonight and a dinner tomorrow, so I'll probably be back friday to see if anyone picks this up and does something with it (or anything from the thread really..)

[Sint]

Merry Christmas, I'll be back in 2 days with a good post.

[Sint]

Sorry for my absence guys, vacation taking a heavier toll then expected.
In chronological order since my last content-post:

Newbies play many different styles, so it's really difficult to know what people play like if they've never played a game on here before. For example, if this wasn't a newbie game, I'd be on pinkkitten in a second, but since she's a newbie, I'm putting her actions with a grain of salt just because she might be overzealous. It's tough to get reads when you don't know how people play.

True, seeing as how we're new you (IC's) don't know how we play, yet you cannot deny that you're more experienced so you ''should'' be able to pick up on tells etc earlier.

Sint I don't understand why you said this. How am I all over the place? what do you mean could have hammered? and how am i not bring stuff to the table?

All over the place: you post a lot of short messages, not saying a whole lot, playing a bit chaotically both in finger pointing and ''targetting'' people. It's just a bit too random. Because of that if seems like you're not trying to find mafia in people, but point attention in various directions as long as it's not in your own direction.
You could have hammered me since I was one vote away from being lynched, but you didn't cast the final vote.
Not bringing stuff to the table: you are posting quite some, yet your content can be counted on one hand. You answer questions, respond to things said and vote accordingly, yet you're not actively trying to find something on people. You don't have the first hand in anything that's going on.

I'll stay out of the brett / para thingy for a bit.

Hi hasdgfas. I'll see if I can whip up an avatar soon.

I'll also reserve my suspicions for a bit because I picked up on a possible pairing. Want to see more before diving into that one (and have to read back a bit better too). For now I'll leave my vote on reach/hasdgfas because reach was most suspicious to me and hasdgfas has yet to show his colours.

[Sint]

5th quote: You're right, we're always risking a mislynch. I only said I wouldn't mind if it was Reach/You. I didn't say you were my number 1 choice. Right now it's Para. So I'm sticking by my guns and leaving my vote on him, as you advise. And it's not that I'm trying to get on people's good side with that 5th quote. It's more that we're deadlined, so we need to start organizing a lynch. I'd prefer lynching Para, but as I said, I wouldn't mind going along with Reach/You since right now Quagmire seems to be the only other suspicious of Para.

Without going into detail at the rest I'd just like to point out that this just isn't true. Reach was at 2 votes, para at 1. If you wanted to organise a lynch (because ohno-deadline) you should've gone with reach instead of spreading the votes. Seeing as how you don't care if either one is lynched it makes even less sence.

The rest will have to wait untill I get back in 2 days. Happy New Year guys!

[Sint]

I laid low for a bit guys, I wanted to watch brett and quag post a bit. I said last time I thought I spotted a pairing because of some wording brett used. He copied quag's view on pink calling her a reckless townie. Now in itself that just might be agreeing or without meaning, but in the same post he gives quag a power-town status. Which is crap play if you're town as pointed out, but could be decent play if it's your scumbuddy. posts 166, 167 and 168 made me almost think like you had your defence ready if someone called it a bad play brett. Now the main problem I have with your play in the voting patern is your own quote:

It was because there was no longer a reason to have the vote on him, but also nowhere else to put it. So why change votes and do something that could be interpreted as scummy when there is no reason? But I also didn't mind removing it. I was indifferent. I don't think it's catering to someone when I don't care either way.

So you're saying you don't really care where you put your vote. Two people are suspicious and you don't care which one goes. Again you're worried as to why it's scummy. Being indifferent and worrying too much about looking scummy had earned you

a big fat FOS

.
I will not vote because that'll put you on L-1 and I don't want anyone quicklynching untill you've had your say.

---

I do like hasd's play more then reach's. I'll

unvote

. You're pushing debate.

---

On to quag then because I mentioned him above too. I find brett a lot more suspicious then quag. It's just that brett copied you. Now, you can't do much about that, but I've spoken out earlier that I find it hard to believe you AND para aren't carrying the discussion more. I do believe you two are the guys with more instinct experience and better reads. I can only speak about my first game on this site where the town only just pulled it trough because of gut-feeling hunches from the IC's. This means that I'm looking at both of you (also like I said earlier). I do not think para deserves to be lynched, nor do I think he's the best candidate at the moment and I don't want to fos/vote for quag because they're in the same boat.

---

Now on to chaos. I really thought pink was all over the place. Hard to read and seeming as suspicious as inept. Now chaos comes in, fos's reach even though he was replaced, makes two non-content posts and then votes an L-1 out of the blue. Even though he said earlier he doesn't like quicklynches. Scummy attitude to me. I'd like you to give a read on everyone or at least some comments so we know what you think about the game or the people.

[Sint]

Also, I'd like to make a request. If I'm put at L-1, and someone feels like hammering, LET ME KNOW BEFORE YOU DO. There are some other things in posts still that I'd like to point out if I'm on my way out. If I'm on top of the list, I'll post before and as close to the deadline as I can.

That's bull. Witholding information that you'll only give out ''if you're on your way out'' ?

I'll make it easier for you.

vote brett

Now you're on L-1. You can explain your actions in the same way again, and yes I have read your explanations before, but it doesn't make them less suspicious/strange.

--

quag and para please also respond to my view on the both of you... in reverse order I think, para first, then quag.

[Sint]

You mean how I posted about him in 142, stayed out of your way (brett and para) in 169 and commenting on him again in 199? Yeah tunnel vision...

[Sint]

You're right. In 142 you said "pretty quiet, somewhat suspicious, not contributed much.
" and nothing more, while giving analysis on everyone.

Not true. Read that post again.

[Sint]

I'll quote myself then. Repost from 42:

''That the IC's are not contributing much makes me think one of them is mafia. You are the more experienced players, you can pick up on tells etc quicker. Seeing how the conversation is lacking, I think that has to do with you two not carrying it more. There could be a reason for not wanted to carry the conversation more.''

[Sint]

I'm sorry, I've been ill. Been chained to bed for 23 hours the last time I stept in and before that not feeling right either. I need to sleep more at nights.

So, we didn't lynch yesterday and with brett getting killed at night we have to lynch a mafia today or we loose (if my perspective isn't off). Or we could no-lynch again, but that'll just make the game easier for the mafia right? In my other game we were in lylo (which we aren't exactly right now.. but close) and we made a mass claim suggested by the IC's. Knowing the roles in this game makes it different though.. Is it still a good play?

Now again on the posting activity and creating 'play'. Both IC's have acted as though nothing happened at night and discuss on. What worries me is your vote quag. It almost looks like a statement to me, ''either me or para is mafia, you guys pick''. I cannot see how both of you can be mafia at all (with yesterday in mind and your push right now), which leaves you both town or one of you mafia. I'd support the latter because of the points I've made early on, but if you're both town you're almost handing the victory to the mafia.

What also worries me is scraps' indecisiveness. You have contributed a low amount looking trough your posts. I'm not saying you should've hammered brett or para, but you glossed over it so easily and in the pages before that you didn't even comment on either of them.

So far I don't know. I'm back to the former action to see if either IC is mafia. It is also time to look for pairings. I tried it earlier, but obviously that didn't work out. For now I'd like to hear reasoning from scraps and quag (on why the early vote).

[Sint]

but I'll try and contribute more.

So who do you think are scum?

[Sint]

So far I'm down to:

hasd - town
chaos - no read
scrap - mafia
para - indecisive
quag - indecisive

Either IC could be it because you've been commenting on eachother for a while now and with quag's vote that pretty much confirmed it for me. However I don't know who is it. I have not yet looked close enough at pairings. I'd like to comment on the doctor, but before that I'd like to know from the IC's what you think on a mass claim (seeing how we lost the cop and we know all the roles in the game).

[Sint]

I am here and I was reading, but after my last post there wasn't anything I wanted to comment on just yet. Right up to this last post by scraps. I can't read it right now, but I'll see if I can find the time later tonight.

[Sint]

I don't know scraps, saying things like ''I say thing not because I want to blend in, but because it's my opinion'' is easy 20-20 in hindsight. I'm glad that you voted, because it at least gives some perspective to your post(s). The deal is that with you voting for quag I'm actually more inclined to vote para. Not the least because of para's last comment (seeming glad for pressure relieve and going after quag), coupled with quag's constant pressure.

I guess I'll await quag's post on para and para's post on quag.

[Sint]

Just a question quag, why did you say ''and my new guess is sint'' ?

[Sint]

Para, it looks to me like you're letting quag go pretty easy...

[Sint]

Para, no I didn't imply you and quag being buddies, I implied what I said. You let go pretty easy. Before you said there was a good case against him and then you dismiss it in 2 lines.

It doesn't matter too much though because I think quag is scum now. You haven't said anything about CS except when hasf brought it to the table. You agreed twice without adding anything yourself and now made a very nice set up. After your vote you said ''feel free to hammer for the win'', except that can only be the case if there are two remaining mafia out there not voting for CS. You cleared hasf AND declared the next person who votes for CS mafia in one sentence while you can't be sure about either. Unless you're mafia yourself and are trying to set up the next person.
Add that to the things I've said before about one of the IC's being mafia, not carrying the game more and the quick vote against para today I think it's settled.

Vote Quag

[Sint]

(and note: I said I "thought" there was a good case, and intended to reread for the purpose of examining the validity of such a case)

Saying things like that always tickle the funny bone, why would you write you think there's a good case against someone when you're not even sure and have to re-read? If I'd said I found a case against someone I'm sure of it, I'm not going to say later that I had reread and it wasn't there...

I don't like how you've been leapfrogging between me and quag without proving a decent case for either, at least until this last post.

I don't really care, I'm sure either one of you is mafia and not untill recently quag has tipped that balance (IMO). If you both are town you can come and hunt me, but I don't think so.

I can't really comment on CS. Yes hasf made a case and it looks decent, but I was actually more ''swayed'' by his next post and quag's follow up indicating that one of you three is mafia. I'm currently voting quag and will keep doing so untill CS comes in and post. Here's a question to ponder, who is the buddy?

[Sint]

So.. in a nut shell: You tried to appear scummy and when someone actually says you're scum, he must be it?
Worst ploy ever?
Also, if you say

If you're not scum, then I know Quag is. If Quag's not scum, then I know you are. Plain and simple.

Then why vote for the one with no votes against him, while quag is at 2? You're not even looking back trough the game which one of the two would be better..

[Sint]

Oh wait and explain this,
you have actually posted between hasd's case against you and this last post (you posted 271 too), why didn't you say this back then?

[Sint]

I was waiting for CS to respond, but you're right, I'll give it untill tonight (~10-12 hours) and then vote. It will indeed be an unvote-vote CS.

[Sint]

Unvote

Vote CS

There we go.

[Sint]

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks for the game guys, thanks for the host bird, gg para

Action: kill brett, block quag.