I think I can address both of these at once:
Claus wrote:
Look at these quotes, then read his lengthy case on N1Noob. Seems pretty strong, right? Except that a little later, I write a post criticizing his N1Noob case, and showing that it is based on nothing. What does Artem do? He changes his story. Now his case on Noob is nothing more than "a hook" for the more serious case on Camisade. He says he never had anything more than the hammer to accuse Noob. But that's not what he first said. What he first said is that he had quite a bit of evidence, and even told us that.
AA wrote:
I'm also a little leery of this bait case you made against camisade-World No.1 Noob. Can you fully explain what your plan was from the beginning and what the goal was?
So, I am assigned as a replacement to Grum. After reading through all the posts I arrive at a place, where essentially three things can be highlighted
1. Gobo vs. AA argument that started with AA pointing out that MM was at L-1.
2. Grum is being suspected due to his newbish/scummy posts.
3. Dave is being suspected due to his lurking.
There were a few other accusations -- of Gobo, Mokina, SL -- but nothing too substantial.
Now, I don't really buy into the Gobo vs. AA argument. I think AA is being sincere in him pointing out the L-1 and hoping to spur more discussion. (This is exactly the opposite play of Camisade who wanted to end D1 ASAP.) Of course, I have to account for the possibility that Gobo and AA are both vying for appearing the most town, but the likelihood of that is rather small.
Defending myself against Grum's scummy posts is like beating my head against the wall.
strappado is still reading the thread, which is only marginally better play than Dave's, and that puts her #2 on my suspect list. Would love to hear what you have to say, strappdo.
So what do I do as a new replacement? If I was scum, I would have probably tried attacking AA and making friends with Gobo (seeing how well SL got away with that), or hopped on the biggest bandwagon (nevermind the fact that that's my wagon).
But when reading AA's defense against Gobo, I actually had to go back to D1 to re-read what happened. Camisade's play stood out to me in stark contrast to AA's play.
I believe Mafia to be a reaction-based game. I think that we can learn a lot from player's reactions to certain posts, sometimes more than the original posts themselves (but not always).
So I decided to put a case together and put it up for scrutiny, to get players to respond and interact, thereby providing reaction material.
Why did I drag #1noob into this? Well, the whole alt talk got me thinking that there is a slight chance that he might have been faking his newbish-ness at D1. So I decided to tack him onto SL's case to test out that theory as well.
Now I have a sitting duck, so I stand by and watch what happens. Some of the scenarios that I was anticipating was people hopping on the case going "Yea, that makes sense, vote: #1noob, SL blah blah", or the more cautious "Hey, let's see some of that extra evidence you got stashed away". I had to make my case look strong, hence all the extra convincing that Claus pointed out.
Then along comes Claus and points out that my bait is fake and that everybody should stay away from it.
But fortunately, I got SL engaged before everybody backed to the spectator state.
So you're saying: "I'm not buying it. You're simply changing your opinion now that you got caught by Claus". Well, if I may point something out:
Artem wrote:
I would like to hear the opinions on my
strategy
. If you would like to see specific quotes or more evidence, I can provide them.
Strategy? What strategy?
Well, believe it or not that was supposed to read: "I would like to hear the opinions on my
case
". But it was one of those mental blocks where you're thinking of something else while typing and accidentally put in one of the words you were thinking. What I was thinking at the time is exactly what I've described: I'm going to set up the case and watch reactions. That was going to be my strategy at flushing out scum.
I've tried it before. Here's a link to another game (still ongoing):
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8164
where I built a case based on a night-kill, and then pointed out that we should be watching the reactions (post 439):
Artem wrote:
However, I think we can learn a lot more from player's reactions to the theory now. You reaction, for one, is quite different than the one we got from strappado.
This is my style of play, which was inspired by Ectomancer in that game. I would also like to point out that I was against lynching bad players in that game also (post 372):
Artem wrote:
No. I am against lynching another person for bad play. I am all for prodding him, though, and if necessary, replacing. But at this point, we don't need any more bodies that were accused of lurking.
I am hoping that this addresses the concerns of me being wishy-washy.
Now, let's take a look at what's going on with SL (another post is coming):
) from post 213:
