Newbie 853 (Endgame, Mafia win!!)

[geekalicious]

By the way, vote geekalicious. Why bring the idea of lurking in the RVS (Random Voting Stage)?

I don't random vote during the random voting phase as a personal rule, so instead, I like to post a question to generate discussion.

[DTMaster]

@Concerned
Join dates and consider the situation at hand. Besides it's also a fallicy to grace all newbs with the newbie halo since they also have a chance to be scum. You are making too great of an assumption on this.

The only way you can effectively discern from each player to find scum is to basically scum hunt and discuss. To determine whether it's a newbie mistake involves lots of rereading, and to weigh out the situation. This is a learning game, so getting thrown in the deep end of it all is the best, and pretty much the best way to learn.

@Town
If you want tips on playing good games it would be a good idea to read some completed games for ideas on how to play.

[Concerned]

Let me explain: I know that DTMaster was using a joking reason for voting for LolIMadeAnAccount, but I was thinking of this: it could make other players, who don't want to be voted out, think "Hey great, let's take him, not me." What made me think of this kind of behavior is that I have seen it in real life, so I know people work this way. And I am thinking, this could be in DTMaster's mind also.

All right, I can agree to

weak

logic, but not

faulty

.

Vanilla's shouldn't have self-preservation at heart but I understand that noob villagers

might

not know this and vote for someone else to preserve their own lives. That said...

Your reasoning is based on DTMaster figuring that we have such villagers in this game and they all might jump on to the vote to save themselves. If DTMaster is scum that seems like a bit of a weak tactic to say the least. There would have to be at least three vanilla's with this faulty mindset plus his scum buddy for LolIMadeAnAccount to get lynched.

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

[DTMaster]

Lol wut?

VTs should defend themselves

and scum hunt at the same time while they defend themselves.

All factions do not want to get lynched. Self defeatest play is poor play Concerned.

[Concerned]

OK well firstly I bookmarked page one and posted without bothering to look if page 2 existed missing the two posts above mine, when I posted earlier.

I realize self defeatist play solves nothing and is poor play in general but his whole argument is based on the assumption the vanilla's are so eager to not be voted off they would jump on your second vote simply to not be voted off themselves.
I don't believe townies are willing to go such lengths to ensure their own survival.

I never said VT townies should not defend themselves. I understand we have to lynch scum by the end of day three or lose so losing villagers hardly helps. I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, whether deliberately or not I obviously don't know.

[Vendelwalker]

You're right of course Concerned (and DTMaster before you), in that it would take so many votes to lynch Loli, and that kind of bandwagon would never get started so easily! My vote was not intended to start a full-blown lynch of course; just trying to get some conversation going.

But Concerned, your vote against me for that actually

does

seem serious. Is that correct? You say that my vote makes you wary. And then this:

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

Whoah, easy there! Cover tracks? Like you say, I don't even have any tracks to cover.

[geekalicious]

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

This particular quote is striking me as scummy. You're grasping at straws here and even admitting it in the same post!

Vendelwalker, I note that you say Concerned's vote against you seems serious whereas yours was just to get conversation started. However, you didn't use use a silly random voting reason to support your vote. You accused DTMaster of trying to start a bandwagon against LolIMadeAnAccount, so what makes your vote non-serious?

[Vendelwalker]

Geekalicious, not a

silly

reason, just a way to get conversation started - looking for a way to move up from choosing name or avatar as something to point to. If I wanted to make a real case out of it I would have been pushing harder, and probably in more posts after the first one.

[DTMaster]

@Cornered
I reread and your argument makes little sense about the vote hopping with the townie.

his whole argument is based on the assumption the vanilla's are so eager to not be voted off they would jump on your second vote simply to not be voted off themselves

The townie should be playing to scum hunt, not to play as scummy townie looking for defense even if he is on the leading wagon. If a towns person decides to follow this path that you outlined he just self implicated himself as ultra scummy, making it an easy lynch against him.

I think realistically, no one would do that unless Person A who votes on next leading wagon B has a solid backing to their vote. The idealized case negates most amount of common sense when playing as townie.

I understand we have to lynch scum by the end of day three or lose so losing villagers hardly helps. I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, whether deliberately or not I obviously don't know.

Actually we need to lynch scum before they have 50% of the population. Depending on the setup this may extend past day 3 FYI (ie a doctor protects someone, or we choose to not lynch on a day).

@Vendel
If a speed lynch did go through it's much more useful to the town regardless if it's a mislynch. We would know there were scum on that wagon and really cuts the suspects down.

[geekalicious]

@Vendel
If a speed lynch did go through it's much more useful to the town regardless if it's a mislynch. We would know there were scum on that wagon and really cuts the suspects down.

Any situation that quickly leads to lynching an innocent town is never useful enough to be justified. You're basically advocating speed lynching.

[DTMaster]

@Geek

Because on the next the the only one who would willingly speed lynch/hammer is scum. No townie in their right mind would completely allow a speed lynch to go through. The wagon would be scum fueled.

Especially if this occurs on day one. Analysis on the wagon (if this happened) is 100x more beneficial then any normal wagon. This of course is best applied on day one. Any other day and you are right, we would be justifying speed lynching when the numbers cannot support good analysis.

[Concerned]

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

This particular quote is striking me as scummy. You're grasping at straws here and even admitting it in the same post!

Firstly my vote against vendel is obviously not serious, the very idea that I would have enough information after such a little bit of time to make a

serious

accusation is ridiculous. I was trying to pressure him for information and I think in doing so more information is now available to the town.

You say I'm grasping at straws when all I was doing was pointing out his bad logic, "grasping at straws" implies I was trying to build a serious case against him which is an incorrect assumption.

The townie should be playing to scum hunt, not to play as scummy townie looking for defense even if he is on the leading wagon. If a towns person decides to follow this path that you outlined he just self implicated himself as ultra scummy, making it an easy lynch against him.

I am well aware of this and this was precisely my point, vendel used the reasoning that townies would act in this manner when casting his vote. Clearly a flawed premise.

Actually we need to lynch scum before they have 50% of the population. Depending on the setup this may extend past day 3 FYI (ie a doctor protects someone, or we choose to not lynch on a day)

Granted . I shouldn't assume, but the likelihood of us needing to lynch a wolf by day three is still high. From what I have read, not lynching is usually not a pro-town tactic except for a few specific late game scenarios and it's not even certain that their is a doctor in the game.

[Vendelwalker]

Pressure me for information? Okay, that does it: a duel, Sir!

No, but seriously. Let's recap. I said:

Instead,

vote: DTMaster

for bandwagoning against LolIMadeAnAccount while making it appear as if that is not what he is doing.

This garnered no reactions except for the pretty ordinary sentiment that it's not much to work with, which was granted. But Concerned took this ball, ran with it, and keeps running:

/VOTE VENDELWALKER
From what I understand, two votes are just as safe as one. Worst case scenario is that two villagers voted for the person and with only two wolves L-5 should be impossible even if the decide to jump on the bandwagon. Your logic is faulty, which although not indicative of scum in a noob game makes me wary.

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

Firstly my vote against vendel is obviously not serious, the very idea that I would have enough information after such a little bit of time to make a

serious

accusation is ridiculous. I was trying to pressure him for information and I think in doing so more information is now available to the town.

This last one sounds like, "I couldn't get more people to follow, so I'll turn around completely and say I wasn't serious, but I'll throw this one last attempt to cast suspicion on him out there - saying there is more information about Vendel to consider now...."

To me it looks like you are trying to get something going. Looks a bit like something an inexperienced scum player would do.

[Concerned]

Firstly I made one comment after you originally voted DT, at that stage it was more of a random pressuring vote based on the only even slightly scummy play I observed.
My main arguments and suspicions came from how you then justified your vote in a way which made me suspicious. So saying I just took your one comment and "took this ball, ran with it" is completely false.

Secondly I said more information was now available to the town about you. Not once did I say this information pertained to you being scummy.
Yet you immediately claimed it was "one last attempt to cast suspicion" how is having more information on you an attempt to cast suspicion? The village having more information on you is only a negative for you, if you're scummy.

This last one sounds like, "I couldn't get more people to follow, so I'll turn around completely and say I wasn't serious, but I'll throw this one last attempt to cast suspicion on him out there - saying there is more information about Vendel to consider now...."

Here you just seem a little to eager to paint me as scum. Almost quoting me on something I didn't say. It's one thing to discredit my reasoning and posts, it's quite another to invent a thought process which isn't there.

Why is it so important to you that I am discredited, because my suspicions were on you?
I have no desire to "duel" with you, I am simply trying to gather information so I can make an informed decision when it is time to lynch.

[LolIMadeAnAccount]

Hm. If I already have two votes on me, that must mean I'm actually scum!

Vote: LolIMadeAnAccount

.

Dammit cruelty, you did the vote I was going to do, and for the exact same reason.

Don't be a anime hater.

EBWOP
VOTE : VENDELWALKER
Did not bold my vote.

Does it really matter? It's the RVS. Votes don't really matter then.

And I'd like it if you other three(Ezekial, Team Aether and Far_Cry) would stop lurking and make a post or two.

[cruelty]

unvote

Man I hate early game arguments. Every game I play there seems to be one and it's never productive.

If you had told me you just stretched for a reason to randomly vote DTMaster and came up with something silly, I would be more inclined to believe it. It just seems like something you made up. An attempt to cover tracks which you didn't even leave.

This strikes me as a very strange thing to say. You're literally and consciously creating a point against VW here.

Firstly my vote against vendel is obviously not serious, the very idea that I would have enough information after such a little bit of time to make a serious accusation is ridiculous. I was trying to pressure him for information and I think in doing so more information is now available to the town.

You say I'm grasping at straws when all I was doing was pointing out his bad logic, "grasping at straws" implies I was trying to build a serious case against him which is an incorrect assumption.

Don't really like this. I'm not sure what, exactly, I'll try to articulate my uneasiness regarding this post later, it's not clicking right now.

[geekalicious]

Firstly my vote against vendel is obviously not serious, the very idea that I would have enough information after such a little bit of time to make a serious accusation is ridiculous. I was trying to pressure him for information and I think in doing so more information is now available to the town.

Your vote on Vendelmaster was not obviously unserious. You specifically cited faulty logic on the part of Vendelmaster for causing it, and now you seem to be backtracking from the seriousness of the vote now that you're being questioned. Oh, and Concerned, would you mind getting an avatar? It'll make it easier for me to find your posts.

LolIMadeAnAccount, why are you voting for yourself...?

And I am starting to get perturbed that Ezekial and Team_Aether haven't even posted yet. For all we know, the scum team hasn't even been on the board.

[geekalicious]

Sorry, meant "Vendelwalker", not "VendelMaster" in the above posts.

[LolIMadeAnAccount]

LolIMadeAnAccount, why are you voting for yourself...?

In a desperate attempt to create some discussion and try and get everyone to stop arguing with one another.

[Vendelwalker]

That's all right Geekalicious, I kind of like Vendelmaster.


Now, this....

Firstly my vote against vendel is obviously not serious, the very idea that I would have enough information after such a little bit of time to make a

serious

accusation is ridiculous.

versus....

Why is it so important to you that I am discredited, because my suspicions were on you?

Those seem contradictory.



(

Sironigus

, perhaps prod Ezekial and Team Aether?)

[LolIMadeAnAccount]

Vendel, a vote implies suspicion onto the person it was cast even if your just joking when you make it. So he might has well have said, "because my vote was on you" and it still would've meant the same.

[Sironigous]

Vote Count

Ezekial
Team Aether
cruelty
Vendelwalker (1) - Concerned
Concerned
LolIMadeAnAccount (2) - DTMaster, LolIMadeAnAccount
DTMaster (1) - Vendelwalker
geekalicious (1) - Far_Cry
Far_Cry

Not Voting: Ezekial, Team Aether, geekalicious, cruelty

With 9 players alive, it takes 5 to lynch!

Ezekial and Team Aether have been prodded.

Deadline: Thursday October 29, 2009.

[Ezekial]

Well im sorry new to this I had to friends get me into this, and to be honest i dont know anything.

[cruelty]

Do you know how to play the game?

[Concerned]

@VW, I dislike random votes and the RVS in general. I'd rather try to find a reason in which discussion can come from and before you say anything I realize that this could be exactly what you did with your reasoning. My goal in this whole discussion was information, despite what you are implying.

@Geek, I tried to use serious reasoning yes, as I said above I'm not a fan of random votes as I don't believe that they benefit the village at all. That said did I honestly expect to build a strong case that VW after such short a time? Of course not. That's all I've been trying to communicate.

@LolI, voting for yourself brought your tally up to three. Surely this opened yourself up to a hammer by the wolves? Do you think it was prudent to do this? Why?