Newbie 873 - Game Over.

[MichelSableheart]

I have read the rules.
I have read my role pm.
I understand them both and don't have any questions.
I am ready to play.

In other words:
/confirm

[MichelSableheart]

Welcome everybody, hope we have a fun game.

Now that the game is on, it's time to find the scum. At the moment, not much information is available, so our second priority should be to get more information on the table.

There are several ways to do this. The most common one is voting on non-existant to weak tells, in order to be able to judge the reaction of the player you're voting. Although this part of the game is sometimes known as the random voting stage (RVS), it should be noted that actually voting randomly isn't a great idea. If your vote is truly random, it is easily ignored, doesn't help you much in getting information, and doesn't give the other players information about you.

It's better to use your vote where you think it has the most effect. You may vote someone because you believe they are likely to respond, you may bandwagon in order to get a reaction. Personally, I try to vote the person that is most likely scum, because they did something that scum is slightly more likely to do then town.

foilist was the last to confirm, and the only player who confirmed more then 24 hours after role pm's were sent. It is my believe that he wanted more time to talk with his partner then the minimum 24 hours.

And why the attempt to explicitly profile himself as an experienced player in his confirmation post? The first post already tells that he's an SE. That seems to be done mainly to build town cred.

Vote: foilist13

[MichelSableheart]

Wow, a lot to comment on for a day of posting.

The first thing I should note is that voting arbitrary is far more common on this site then I would like. It is generally done in order to get the game going. Foilist' original vote is very likely to be done by town, and therefore not a scumtell. As Jackabomb said, rolling a die or using a random number generator would be completely unacceptable to me.

---

That being said, McGriddle and Crimmy bandwagoning to L-1 strikes me as far more suspicious then foilist' original late confirm. As I said, little information is available early in the game, but quite a bit of information can be gained simply looking at the behaviour of other players.

Crimmy as the L-1 vote has been put under a bit of pressure already, but I don't want to ignore the L-2.

Unvote

Vote: McGriddle

McGriddle, what is your opinion on Crimmy's vote for foilist?

---

@CSL: the RVS can never end too quick in my opinion. Far more info becomes available from serious discussion, so you should start serious discussion as soon as possible.

---

But before this game goes further, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who votes for a no lynch will earn my vote. Lynches are ALWAYS better than no lynches, because if we lynch someone, we get information. If we quicklynch, the person who hammervoted will be the top of the suspicious list. I will NEVER vote for a no lynch.

Day 1, I completely agree with you. However, there are situations

late

in the game where a no lynch may be the right play. A 4 man Mylo (mislynch means you lose) with no confirmed innocents comes to mind.

---

are the numbers nest to the voters' names the post number?

I think they are the vote number. You made the first vote, so your vote for me would get number 1. My vote was the second, and gets number 2. Which is why your vote for Crimmy gets number 7.

[MichelSableheart]

Grimmy, you have to realize something. It is highly unlikely that you will be lynched very soon. Game days on mafiascum usually last 3 weeks, and they regulary go to deadline. During that time, a lot of things get discussed. If you are able to give a good explanation for your behaviour, you can usually avoid being lynched.

You have been accused of trying to set up a quicklynch of foilist. What was your reasoning when you voted him? What were you trying to accomplish? Did you realize your vote would put him at L-1?

[MichelSableheart]

Apologies. This is just a simple post to show that I haven't forgotten about this game. Unfortunately, it's half past one in the morning. I'm simply too tired to read this game thoroughly, let alone make relevant comments.

[MichelSableheart]

Let's see...

The brother-dimaba argument feels a lot like two pro-town players clashing. Brother is correct when he says that Dimaba's post give an impression of "look how pro-town I am!". However, to me that seems to be a result of inexperience combined with writing style, rather then intentional behaviour by scum.

McGriddle is switching bandwagons on little reason a bit too often for my taste. It gives me the feeling he wants to follow popular opinion in order to not stand out.

I'm having trouble making sense of cades. His writing style makes it difficult for me to understand what he is trying to say. His over the top reaction to a bit of suspicion also doesn't sit very well with me. However, I get the impression that he's playing poorly rather then scummy.

foilist analysis of the game situation matches mine for the most part. I have no reasons to be suspicious of him at the moment.

[MichelSableheart]

I don't like the way the hammer happened at all. CSL and Jackabomb were way too eager for my taste. I don't like their interactions at all. CSL #109 puts at L-1 and demands a claim, Jackabomb #121 after the claim asking if he should hammer, CSL giving him permission in #123, and then the hammer in #128. All this happened while foilist wasn't aware that there had been a claim, and at a time when it was in the middle of the night for both Dimaba and me. Neither of the early voters had posted since before Cades put McGriddle at L-2. I'm not liking the play there at all. If McGriddle is indeed town, at least one of Jack and CSL is scum.

[MichelSableheart]

Withholding votes until the 27th is a terrible idea. It greatly risks us having immense troubles getting a consensus. Besides that, there is nothing wrong with reaching a lynch long before deadline. The only problem is a quicklynch when some players haven't really commented on the situation at hand. And players who quicklynch in that way are far more likely to be scum.

The nightkill of brother isn't that surprising to me now that I think of it. He wasn't under any suspicion whatsoever, but also didn't stand out at all. From a scum point of view, it seems unlikely that he is protected by a doc, and could be powerrole lying low. I doubt his interactions with Dimaba have anything to do with why scum chose to kill him.

CSL, your claim that you didn't tell Jack to hammer is completely ridiculous. Both #123 and #127 are strongly encouraging Jack to hammer.

I also find it extremely interesting that CSL places a FoS instead of a vote in #142. Crimmy hadn't brought up his "don't vote till just before deadline" argument yet. FoS'es are seldom used, unless there is a specific reason not to vote. Why didn't you vote there, CSL?

His argument that using the word "beg" is scummy is complete rubbish. There is no reason whatsoever why scum is more likely to use the word beg then town is, especially in that context.

foilist, I believe that CSL's behaviour is far more suspicious then that of Crimmy. Crimmy's early L-1 on you was poor, but not unheard of in new players, especially if they're used to fast games. His pressure on McGriddle day 1 seemed genuine to me, and he was not involved in the sudden lynch of McGriddle. In fact, he argued against quicklynching in post #111, and his behaviour there completely matches his view on only using FoS'es till one day before deadline.

CSL, on the other hand, was pushing the relative easy cases of Crimmy, McGriddle and Cades on day 1, using scumtells straight out of the book, without any indication of actually considering if behaviour was likely to come from scum. Also, something feels really of on his L-1 vote. It refers to a post, without actually explaining why said post is scummy. There also seems to be far too much emphasis on McGriddle claiming, and far too little investigation if McGriddle is actually scum. Then there's encouraging Jack to hammer, and at the beginning of day 2 an attempt to put the blame for the hammer completely with Jack.

Vote: CSL

[MichelSableheart]

Crimmy, I don't believe there is a contradiction in foilist' opinion on FoSing.

I read him as saying: 'a FoS is useless, because there is no added value compared to saying "I am suspicious of him"'. Whenever you would place a FoS, you could get the exact same result by saying "I'm suspicious of him".

There's no contradiction there whatsoever.

---
Also, his remark that CSL is a hypocrite seems directed at post #142, and therefore not something he would have brought up before the deadscene.

[MichelSableheart]

Am I the only one who believes replacements are detrimental for the game, and shouldn't happen unless they are absolutely necessary?

If Jack is able to post content once every two or three days, he shouldn't be replaced IMO.

[MichelSableheart]

@Michael - You haven't posted any content in a while. It seems like you've mostly been coaching, and while that is your job you have not been making much analysis.

Excuse me? Post #165 (made only two days ago) contains a rather in depth analysis of both CSL and Crimmy. Post #177 (posted yesterday) is my reaction to Crimmy's analysis of you. How is that not content?

[MichelSableheart]

Uh oh here comes my scummy post, anyway, I agree with crimmy (see I told you it was scummy) about CSL and Jack.

Can you please cut down the appeals to emotion and the fatalism? Rather then saying how this post is probably going to make you look scummy, you would have been far better of telling us why you agree with him exactly.

[MichelSableheart]

Jack, in post #131, you say that this game has one of the quickest wagons and quickest D1 you had ever seen. When you hammered, did you take into account that it might be too quick? Why exactly did you feel there was nothing more to gain from extending day 1?

[MichelSableheart]

CSL, who do you believe is scum, and why?

[MichelSableheart]

I beleive that foilist was the only one not aware of the current situation at the time of the hammer. Also, at the time that I posted, I had been reading through the previous posts. This made me feel like each post had come right after another like a building wave, if you will, against mcgrill. It is only logical that the suspense be finalized.

The problem though, is that in those previous posts, only you, CSL and Crimmy had been talking about McGriddle. Foilist hadn't commented seriously since post #100, and had obviously missed the claim. Cades hadn't added anything relevant. Brother, Dimaba and me didn't post on page 5 at all. Because of that, the building wave you had been talking about could easily have been completely manufactured by scum.

In hindsight, I realize that we might have gained more from an extended D1, but I kind of doubt it. What might we have gained? Most of the time, a townie claim isn't exactly going to save you. Rhetorical question: If you had been a doublevoter, how many of the other members of mcgrill's wagon would have hammered?

What you would have gained were responses from foilist, brother, dimaba and me. I know this is stated after the hammer, and therefore can't be checked, but I would have unvoted simply because I didn't like the way CSL put McGriddle at L-1 at all.

---

@CSL #195: There was no reason whatsoever to mention the cop there. Try to refrain from commenting on powerroles unless strictly necessary.

foilest, SEs make mistakes. Just like any other person. McGrill seemed the most scummiest by a 1/2 mile or so. cades would've been my suspect, had McGrill flipped scum.

The mistake you made isn't the fact that you voted McGriddle. The mistake you made is that you didn't tell Jack to wait with hammering till everyone had commented. He asked if he should hammer. You, as SE, should have told him to wait. Instead, you implicitly gave him permission.

---

@Dimaba and Michael - I was just looking for someone to pick on. Michael, you get it automatically by virtue of being the IC

Why didn't you check your facts before making the accusation though? False accusations make someone look bad even though there is nothing in the game to support them. Especially inattentive players are easily fooled that way.

Also, it's Michel, without an 'a'.

[MichelSableheart]

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

Can you back that intention in any way with quotes from the relevant page?

---

I bet you vote me now.

Why did you write that sentence, cades?

[MichelSableheart]

[SNIP] and I put, I bet you vote me now cause last time I voted jack and jack and csl immediately voted me.

Assume for a moment that that is indeed the way it went. That still only explains to me why you expected to be voted. It does not explain why you

wrote

that part of your post. What were you trying to accomplish? How does that help catching scum?

As far as I can see, the only thing that part of your post accomplished was that it annoys the other players in the game, making it indeed more likely you would get voted.

---
@Everyone pressuring cades: Do you believe that cades' appeals to emotion are likely to be made by scum? Why?

I agree that it is extremely annoying to read him predicting his doom, but I don't think that behaviour is likely to come from scum. Scum would behave that way if they believed it made them less likely to be lynched. With almost everybody in the town stating how annoying it is, scum surely would have realised that it made them more likely to be lynched instead.

[MichelSableheart]

Foilist, I agree with you that a CSL lynch would give us information on Jack. I would like to stress though that with the reasoning you've given, a CSL scum flip does not give us info on Jack. I am afraid that, if you're scum with CSL, you would use a CSL scum lynch to aim for a Jack mislynch tomorrow.

[MichelSableheart]

The recurring ATE and endless voting without reason is making me think he's quite scummy right now. Michel, if he's newb-town enough to ignore repeated warnings like what we've given, he's newb-scum enough to do the same.

If he is newb-town enough to ignore repeated warnings, it's because he is playing badly. If he is newb-scum enough to ignore repeated warnings, it's because he is playing badly. His appeal to emotion would not be a tell either way. It's a null tell.

You call him scummy for it. That means you believe that his behaviour is more likely to come from scum then from town. Again, why is scum more likely to behave that way?

---

@Michel - I see your point. Can we agree then that the best options now would be to lynch either csl for slightly less information, or to go after cades, who is essentially lurking at this point?

A CSL lynch is definately the right play today. However, a cades lynch is not an option for me. I simply don't believe that his behaviour in this game is intentionally done by scum to gain an advantage. The pressure he is under feels like scum is trying to set up a lynch on the village idiot. I would lynch Jack (for his hammer) over cades in a heartbeat, and could see myself lynching most of the other players just as well as I could see myself lynching cades.

---

The AtE, among other mindless posts cades is making, reminds me of my first game. It is, however, very scummy to make that a game plan. I am more happy than ever before with my vote.

Why is scum more likely to play that way then town is? What do they have to gain?

[MichelSableheart]

Ok. I'll answer your question, but first...

If cades flips scum, who is next?

If cades flips town who is under fire?

Were you talking to me? Because I am not willing to support a cades lynch, I don't really see how these questions are relevant.

Also, you still haven't answered this:

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

Can you back that intention in any way with quotes from the relevant page?

[MichelSableheart]

True enough, but don't forget that cades has also been lurking and rarely provides good reason for his posts/votes.

Which to me is also more indicative of new player then of scum.

I've already said everything I had to say about CSL. In particular, I refer you to post #165, where I voted him.

[MichelSableheart]

Personally, I don't have any more questions to ask today. I have reasonably strong reads on everyone.

However, I would like to give CSL the opportunity to claim before he is hammered. If he decides to claim, I expect to see that claim in his next post.

[MichelSableheart]

Why do you want cades to claim? There is absolutely no reason for cades to claim at this moment. He isn't at risk of being lynched, and it is unlikely that he'll be nightkilled. Town wouldn't gain anything from his claim, and finding any powerroles would become easier for the scum.

[MichelSableheart]

I have to agree, this was an excellent game.

The first I have to compliment is Crimmy for his play in Lylo. The claim was well played, and you managed to keep composed. Only one small remark. It's good to be careful, but there's no reason whatsoever to not vote the confirmed scum.

The second player I have to compliment is Foilist. You played an excellent game, avoiding suspicion while pushing mislynches. I'm unsure if you handled the claiming situation well though. By going for "it has to be 7 VT's vs goon and roleblocker" Kyiv had to decide between you and Jackabomb vs Crimmy and Dimaba. However, if you had counterclaimed Dimaba, Kyiv would have to decide between you and Dimaba, and you would have been able to better use the strenght of your previous play. Of course, ideally Jackabomb had counterclaimed doc immediately, and you had claimed cop before Dimaba did. That play gives Kyiv the most opportunities to make a mistake.

What I saw from brother looked good. It would have been nice to have seen more posts from him though.

cades play could have been better. Continually going "watch how I'm going to be under suspicion from this post" mainly has the effect that the other players are getting annoyed by you and will lynch you just to get rid of you.

CSL was mislynched mainly because his play at the end of day 1 was poor. He made a few incorrect decissions there, which turned out badly for the town. As I said, at least one player out of CSL/Jackabomb had to be scum for it. Apologies for guessing wrong.

Dimaba played good, gave a solid town read. A bit more activity would have improved his play, but he was never under serious suspicion, reasoned well, and handled claiming on day 3 correctly.

Jack played reasonably well. It may be worth noting though that asking for permission to hammer is quite often seen as a scumtell here. If CSL hadn't gone "sure, do what you want", you probably would have gotten attacked heavily for that.

Kyiv was proven innocent shortly after replacing in, and I didn't get to play with him. I can't say much about him except that he made the correct decission.

McGriddle didn't play too badly. There were some mistakes due to inexperience early in the game, but I don't think he should be blamed for being the day 1 mislynch.