Newbie 810 - Game over!

[12Keyblade]

Just FTR...BlueRaven has until 12:48 pm (Eastern Time) to post and 'splain good, or he gets my vote for at least...well...a while anyway.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Zachrulez replaces TFGM.

Official Vote Count

12Keyblade - 1 (reverendpsycho)

BlueRaven - 2 (Krauthammer, geekalicious)

Not Voting - 6 (12Keyblade, BlueRaven, KittyMo, ronnieroo, TheFlyingGreenMonkey, xRECKONERx)

5 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Wednesday, July 22 (Eastern, GMT - 4).

[12Keyblade]

Hi Zachrulez!

: Do you believe anything can be gleaned from anyone's random vote? Why?

Do you think it would be a good idea to lynch quickly on Day 1? Why?

Do you follow a "Lynch all Lurkers" policy? Why?

Do you follow a "Lynch all Liars" policy? Why?

Care to answer any/all of these? (After a reread, of course)

[Zachrulez]

Hey guys, I still need to go through and read this game.

For now I'll

Unvote:

in case my predecesor was voting for anyone.

[KittyMo]

Hey Zach!!

[Zachrulez]

Hi Kitty.

[Zachrulez]

Do you believe anything can be gleaned from anyone's random vote? Why?

Sure. If they claim a true random vote, like a dice roll or something like that, you can determine that they are trying to escape any accountability for their vote. Also, sometimes in a random vote, someone will give reasoning that's a bit spot, and can be a great way to start the game along by scrutinizing it.

Do you think it would be a good idea to lynch quickly on Day 1? Why?

In general no. Without any information to analyze from people's actions the odds of lynching a scum on a quick lynch are 2 in 9. On top of that we go into day 2 with little more than a few flips. There are always exceptions though, like if someone claims scum (or any actions that pretty much out them as scum), then you lynch the bastard like lightning.

Do you follow a "Lynch all Lurkers" policy? Why?

Not really. It's better to get replacements for the people who aren't posting in the game or have flaked out of the game. There is a kind of lurking that I do find scummy though, it's called active lurking. It's where you post just enough to stay in the game, but don't actively partake in the game. It's a very useful tactic to avoid committing yourself to anything that might make you look suspicious as scum.

Do you follow a "Lynch all Liars" policy? Why?

This is actually a pretty complex question when I think about it. The short answer really is, it depends on what the lie is. What you have to keep in mind is that there may be reasons for townies to not disclose certain information, or to not tell the truth in a particular situation.

Let's take someone who just happens to have the role of doctor in a given game. A common newbie question would be to ask people how they might play as cop or doctor, or anything like that. In that kind of a situation, they may not want to tell the truth about how they play the role so as not to give off power tells that will make them easily identifiable to the scum. So if the person comes out and claims doctor later in the game and says they lied about how they would play the role to misdirect scum, would you lynch them just because they lied?

On the other hand, lying about things that players did in order to make them look more suspicious is scummy and you should lynch those kind of liars.

[Zachrulez]

Also, just so you guys know, I'm also an IC.

Feel free to ask me any game theory questions about anything you're not comfortable or sure about.

[xRECKONERx]

Zach, who do you find most scummy after these first few pages?

What is your read on Raven?

[BlueRaven]

Directed @ BlueRaven

1. Who do you currently find suspicious and why?
2. Do you remember your entire thought process for voting me? If so, could you please explain it to us?

3. Who do you currently find not suspcious and why?

(Good question, Reckoner!)

ok after an extensive examination of all the posts b4 my increadably nwb mistake i've come to a conclusion:

1) that TFGM (or his replacement) for the evidance that other players have given against him being town. And krauthammer for defending, but this could be turned around saying that he's just giving his own opinion and thats it. Of corse this could go one even further saying that im vilanising them...

2) Yes i can. I was being brain-dead acting on spur of the moment being a nwb. But that has changed (i hope) seeing ive been putting time into reading some guides.

3) Im not sure realy...

[BlueRaven]

oh and hi zach

[geekalicious]

2) Yes i can. I was being brain-dead acting on spur of the moment being a nwb. But that has changed (i hope) seeing ive been putting time into reading some guides.

I can believe that you made a newbie mistake and had a brain dead moment. However, you had obviously been doing some reading before now as you admitted:

ac.... dam.... thats not good... i read a poll earlyer saying about a newbie mistake... i think im the person that just slipped up and did the newbie mistake.

And what sort of poll would most likely say that's a newbie mistake for a role but a poll on how newbies play mafia in the game (though, yes, it could admittedly be in a poll about general newbie mistakes)? So I'm still inclined to believe that you had a brain dead newb moment where you revealed yourself in doing something scummy rather than just making a more innocent newb mistake like what I now suspect TheFlyingGreenMonkey was doing... Especially when I re-analyze him voting for himself and then asking to leave the game, he's really looking like a newb that got extremely flustered.

[xRECKONERx]

Raven's "i read a poll" comment still strikes me as odd. You mind pointing out or linking us to that poll, Raven? I fail to see what the poll said, or how it excuses voting someone for no reason.

[12Keyblade]

Vote: BlueRaven

Still not satisfied.

[12Keyblade]

I believe that's L-2.

Role Claim? In addition to explaination.

[Zachrulez]

I believe that's L-2.

Role Claim? In addition to explaination.

Is there any particular reason you think L-2 is a good time to ask for a roleclaim?

[12Keyblade]

I believe that's L-2.

Role Claim? In addition to explaination.

Is there any particular reason you think L-2 is a good time to ask for a roleclaim?

It comes before L-1? If you want to wait until then, fine. There was a after roleclaim to see if others wanted it.

[Zachrulez]

Also I'm noticing that my predecessor earned a few votes for voting for a no lynch.

I am suspicious of both votes, most particularly geekalicious' especially because he quickly transitions into an opportunistic Blueraven vote.

Why is it, that my predecessor got hammered so hard for his no lynch stance, rather than someone taking the time out to explain to him why the idea was bad?

Supporting no lynch is a common newbie error that must be beaten out of them with a logical explanation, and the best one for it is that it takes away one of the town's lynches. (You go from having 3 with 9 players to 2 with 8.)

Anyway, Blueraven does look a little bit fishy to me, but I am weary of the speed of the bandwagon that formed on him. My gut is telling me that scum are driving this bandwagon.

[12Keyblade]

Also I'm noticing that my predecessor earned a few votes for voting for a no lynch.

I am suspicious of both votes, most particularly geekalicious' especially because he quickly transitions into an opportunistic Blueraven vote.

Why is it, that my predecessor got hammered so hard for his no lynch stance, rather than someone taking the time out to explain to him why the idea was bad?

Supporting no lynch is a common newbie error that must be beaten out of them with a logical explanation, and the best one for it is that it takes away one of the town's lynches. (You go from having 3 with 9 players to 2 with 8.)

Anyway, Blueraven does look a little bit fishy to me, but I am weary of the speed of the bandwagon that formed on him. My gut is telling me that scum are driving this bandwagon.

I explained that No Lynch is usually a bad idea, but presented a scenario where it works.

So you're implicating krauthammer and/or geekalicious as scum? They were the first two votes.

[Zachrulez]

Hey, let's not have epically long posts like that, please. Makes the game much more of a hassle than it needs to be. Linking to posts in reference is fine, and you could also just... not chime in on every single thing.

That being said, I'm a fan of the TFGM wagon.

I find Reckoner a bit suspect for this post. It gives me the feel that he is discouraging discussion.

I personally didn't mind post 39. While a game full of text walls can be really dreadful to read, posting one every now and then when necessary is not a bad thing at all, and I would hate to see reverendpsycho stop posting certain thoughts or not giving insight to the level he did on 39 because of one IC's complaint about the post.

[geekalicious]

I am suspicious of both votes, most particularly geekalicious' especially because he quickly transitions into an opportunistic Blueraven vote.

Anyway, Blueraven does look a little bit fishy to me, but I am weary of the speed of the bandwagon that formed on him. My gut is telling me that scum are driving this bandwagon.

The primary reason for the wagon forming against BlueRaven has been his consistent lack of contribution to the conversation, the lack of vote rationalization besides "I'm a noob!", and the fact that he jumped onto a KittyMo vote just for the sole reason that she had the most votes (besides TheFlyingGreenMonkey, which he conveniently didn't vote for even though he had generated much more discussion).

Additionally, in reference to my votes thus far, the first vote according to TheFlyingGreenMoneky was in coordination with KittyMo. This vote for BlueRaven, if in coordination with anyone, would be me with Krauthammer. I'm seriously doubting that I'd have the sudden ability to switch scum buddies to coordinate the attack. In both cases, I have added my vote because the players had exhibited scum behavior and having a two votes on them seemed like a proper impetus to push them into discussing their actions without seriously threatening them.

[Zachrulez]

Additionally, in reference to my votes thus far, the first vote according to TheFlyingGreenMoneky was in coordination with KittyMo. This vote for BlueRaven, if in coordination with anyone, would be me with Krauthammer. I'm seriously doubting that I'd have the sudden ability to switch scum buddies to coordinate the attack. In both cases, I have added my vote because the players had exhibited scum behavior and having a two votes on them seemed like a proper impetus to push them into discussing their actions without seriously threatening them.

If I presume you scum for the purposes of this post, where is it said that the people you are coordinating votes with have to be your scumbuddies? It could well be just as possible that as scum you could be weaving connections with townies to drag them down in a web of suspicious behavior if you ever flipped scum on a lynch.

[geekalicious]

If I presume you scum for the purposes of this post, where is it said that the people you are coordinating votes with have to be your scumbuddies? It could well be just as possible that as scum you could be weaving connections with townies to drag them down in a web of suspicious behavior if you ever flipped scum on a lynch.

Since you said that you found "both" votes for TheFlyingGreenMonkey suspicious and also that you thought scum was driving the current possible BlueRaven lynch, I inferred that you thought I was scum and at least one of the people who I'd had my vote with so far was also scum.

[Zachrulez]

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to say that I think more than 2 people are scum in an attempt to discredit my suspicions.

It is possible for more than 2 people to be suspicious in a given game where there are two scum. (If this wasn't true, townies would never get lynched.)

Finding more than 2 people suspicious is not the same thing as thinking more than 2 people are scum.

Your defenses only make me feel even stronger about the fact that you're most likely scum.

Vote: Geekalicious

[geekalicious]

It is possible for more than 2 people to be suspicious in a given game where there are two scum. (If this wasn't true, townies would never get lynched.)

No, no, that's not what I'm trying to argue with. I can definitely see how more than 2 people in a game can appear suspicious. In your previous posts, perhaps I misread you in the way your were casting suspicion about how two votes (which, I'll state again, I don't consider a bandwagon) were placed upon TheFlyingGreenMonkey and BlueRaven.

My main point going into this line of thought is that both people I've voted for thus far have been obviously suspect and that's why I voted for them. Plain and simple.

Finally, the odd behavior of your predecessor and the way you're suddenly voting for me are making me suspicious right now.