Newbie 892 - The Future of Magic. Game Over! Mafia Win

[Doctor]

The my tootsie are all toastie Vote count

The Tracker: RayFrost, Dimaba
cdubs: LordChronos
RayFrost: Jackabomb
LordChronos: Yosarian2

Not voting: cdubs

Deadline is 26th January 2010, 9pm England time.

Lots of Love,
Hayl

@Tracker I've gotten a bit of a scummy vibe on your from the start, you do have experience in the game, and even if it was a joke which it probably was and I do belive it to be so, the "roleclaim" on my name still can be used to draw out the possible doctor, someone with some experience might know this. So while it is considered a joke, I still cannot ignore the possibilty that you could just be hiding it under the joke.

secondly the LaL thing was a bit scummy simply because of the game being fairly new, but you've posted your response to this already just stating my own opinions. Personally I merely posted to get conversation started and hopefully to get the two non posters to post, one has come through while the other appears to be indisposed.

@Rayfrost I slightly agree with Eas, but you also have been attempting to scumhunt, from what I see so your still on the fence with me

@eas I havn't gotten a read on you as of yet. You are posting but there isn't much there save your last post i'll attribute that to your work, seeing as I have a similar problem. I'd Like your opinions of me personally.

@Dimaba, walls of text. You havn't been posting as long as the rest of us so my read is limited, but you have added some interesting flavor especially attempting to purchas a one way ticket on the tracker train.
which despite his scummy qualities could also make way for a myslynch, seeing as information is still quite low. This is a bit scummy

@Jack from what I'm seeing you seem to be protown for the moment I dont recally any thing scummy from you as of yet.

@Lord hardly anything here other than a few posts, something of a real lurker compared to the not postings. Could be dangerous

@Yos I'm getting a town vibe from you currently, your lack of a suspect for a while shows to me that you seem to be thinking about who your voting for and not just trying to hop on a wagon, but it could also be chalked up to experience, but in the end thats a very weak argument.

I belive thats everyone thats active I apologize for the wall of text, but I wished to get my current ideas and suspicions of everyone out and for the benefiet of the town.

@Everyone I would like to ask if the choice was left to you would you lynch a Lurker who has posted but has not contained anything of value to the town except a few short posts, or someone who is posting but is coming off as scummy, but has some pro town qualities as well.

Personally I would go for the Scummy player if the town qualities were weak or less than the scummy qualities otherwise the lurker, but thats just opinion.

[Doctor]

Also I would like to add I'd like to

VOTE: Lordchronos

not enough participation, maybe stimulation will help.

[The Tracker]

@dimaba: Or I could just be trying to fish a reaction out of you the same you did with your vote for me. I was attacking you for a reaction, good sir.

[LordChronos]

Yikes, I'm away for the night and all this happens.

Well, I guess I'd better provide some content, since it seems I have come under suspicion for not doing that enough.

On the Lynch all Lurkers debate that has come up. Personally, I would much rather have lurkers replaced than lynched. However, if, later in the game, we come to a situation where no one looks like scum, but someone is lurking, I would rather lynch that lurker than someone else, since it could be harmful to have a lurker in LyLo.

@Tracker
How is dimaba coming in, posting, and putting the

second

vote on you scummy? As I recall, he did give reasons for his vote.

@dimaba
I would like to ask you the same question you asked Tracker earlier. If we had to lynch someone right now, who would you lynch?

@Doctor
You criticize me for lack of participation in this game, but pretty much all you have done so far is talk about lurkers. Any thoughts on players who might be scum?

Right now, I don't think I am going to move my vote off cdubs.

[LordChronos]

Oh yes,

Haylen, can we get a votecount please?

[Haylen]

Yep, I'm on it now. Goodness, you're an active bunch. The last newbie game I was part of (ICing) they were barely on 3 posts by now.

[cdubs]

Hey guys i'm here. I currently have limited computer access because I'm traveling with my friends across the East coast. While I'm here however, i'll say

Vote: Doctor

[Haylen]

The Im a duck. *quack* Vote count

The Tracker: RayFrost, Dimaba
cdubs: LordChronos
RayFrost: Jackabomb
LordChronos: Yosarian2, Doctor
Doctor: cdubs

Not voting: easjo682, LordChronos

Deadline is 26th January 2010, 9pm England time.

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch

Lots of Love,
Hayl

[LordChronos]

@cdubs

Would you mind giving some reasoning for that vote? Personally, apart from his fixation on lurkers, I don't think he has done much of anything that qualifies him as scummy.

@Haylen

I'm pretty sure that Doctor was the second vote on me, not myself. I'm not one to vote for myself.

Sorry, I'm distracted. Not that that's any excuse. But I've just realised, exactly 9 months ago, give or take a few days, I was where you are starting my first newbie game ~ Hayl

[The Tracker]

@Tracker
How is dimaba coming in, posting, and putting the

second

vote on you scummy? As I recall, he did give reasons for his vote.

He appeared out of the blue and used 90% of RayFrost's argument against me. It could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch, and obviously doing that is scummy. Even if he believes in the cockles of his little heart I am scum and he is truly Town, at the very least starting to turn a vote into a wagon is suspicous.

[LordChronos]

@Tracker
How is dimaba coming in, posting, and putting the

second

vote on you scummy? As I recall, he did give reasons for his vote.

He appeared out of the blue and used 90% of RayFrost's argument against me. It could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch, and obviously doing that is scummy. Even if he believes in the cockles of his little heart I am scum and he is truly Town, at the very least starting to turn a vote into a wagon is suspicous.

This doesn't make any sense. Why on earth is it scummy to start turning a vote on a player you find scummy into a wagon. Don't we want to lynch scum? Further, I really don't see how adding one vote to one existing vote makes a bandwagon. Your argument that it could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch can just as easily be turned around to say that it could be an attempt at bandwagoning a scum lynch, which it could be.

This is actually increasing my suspicions of you, Tracker.

FoS: Tracker

[The Tracker]

Be as suspicious as you want. I'm simply defending myself but it seems your mind is made up.

[dimaba]

@dimaba: Or I could just be trying to fish a reaction out of you the same you did with your vote for me. I was attacking you for a reaction, good sir.

Indeed, that could very well be. Which is part of why I'm not convinced enough to want you to be lynched. But I do believe fishing for a reaction as a response to an accusation, and thereby shifting focus away from yourself, is not the same as fishing for a reaction while on the offensive.

@dimaba
I would like to ask you the same question you asked Tracker earlier. If we had to lynch someone right now, who would you lynch?

I would lynch Tracker, as is clear by the fact that I still have my vote on him. You can find my reasons for accusing him in previous posts. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that he is scum, just that if we had to lynch someone now he would be slightly more likely to be scum than the others.

@Everyone I would like to ask if the choice was left to you would you lynch a Lurker who has posted but has not contained anything of value to the town except a few short posts, or someone who is posting but is coming off as scummy, but has some pro town qualities as well.

As you said, it depends on how strong the pro- or anti-town qualities are. I would probably lynch the active player. He/she will have participated in discussion, will have been actively attacked and defended etc. and is therefore more likely to give us information on where other players stand in relation to him/her.
However, if the lurker has clearly been active lurking (e.g. inactive but dropping in immediately (and only) each time someone accuses him of scumlurking, showing that he has enough time available to post regularly and chooses not to) the conclusion would have to be that he is deliberately acting anti-town and that is enough to lynch the sucker on.

@Chronos; Tracker's argument does make some sense in that scum may be more eager to start a bandwagon (since they aren't concerned with wether there is actually enough evidence to lynch the victim). I think that is what he means when he says that starting a bandwagon is suspicious.
But as you say, two votes is hardly a bandwagon so I agree that in the end the point is invalid.

[The Tracker]

Indeed, that could very well be. Which is part of why I'm not convinced enough to want you to be lynched. But I do believe fishing for a reaction as a response to an accusation, and thereby shifting focus away from yourself, is not the same as fishing for a reaction while on the offensive.

Indeed, it is not. However, I prefer to defend while attacking, if that makes any sense. Covering myself while directing my own questions to my attacker could very well give me some useful information for a read later on.

[LordChronos]

@Chronos; Tracker's argument does make some sense in that scum may be more eager to start a bandwagon (since they aren't concerned with wether there is actually enough evidence to lynch the victim). I think that is what he means when he says that starting a bandwagon is suspicious.
But as you say, two votes is hardly a bandwagon so I agree that in the end the point is invalid.

The point I was trying to make was that Tracker said that even if you were completely convinced that he was scum, trying to drum up support against him in the form of a bandwagon was scummy. This really doesn't make sense. If I become sure at some point in the game that someone is scum, you can bet that I will try my utmost to get them lynched.

@Everyone I would like to ask if the choice was left to you would you lynch a Lurker who has posted but has not contained anything of value to the town except a few short posts, or someone who is posting but is coming off as scummy, but has some pro town qualities as well.

Going by the games that I have read in the past, I would have to say that it would be better to lynch the scummy player. As dimaba pointed out, their lynch would probably give more information. Also, I personally would feel more comfortable lynching someone because they are scummy than because they haven't posted much. As I said earlier, if it was a choice between people I didn't feel were particularly scummy and a lurker, active or otherwise, I would lynch the lurker.

[dimaba]

Indeed, it is not. However, I prefer to defend while attacking, if that makes any sense. Covering myself while directing my own questions to my attacker could very well give me some useful information for a read later on.

That does make sense and you are right that it can give you valuable information. My problem with that in this case was that it seemed that attempting to gain information from me was used as a way to keep me from gaining information on you, if you see what I mean. Asking questions of your attacker is fine, but only if you also answer your attacker's questions. Now that you're doing that, I'm starting to find you less suspicious.

[The Tracker]

Okay, I see what you were saying. Sorry I wasn't answering your questions as fully as I should have.

@Chronos: Let's see if I can try to explain this better: if a bandwagon is started and the person being wagon'd turns out to be Town, then everyone that contributed to the bandwagon would be suspect. Also, bandwagons can snowball rather easily, so 2 votes can turn into 3, then 3 into 4...see where I'm going with this? Bandwagons aren't inherently wrong, but it can be rather easy to get them to snowball out of control. That's why I'm especially wary of possible wagons starting on the first or second page.

[LordChronos]

@Chronos: Let's see if I can try to explain this better: if a bandwagon is started and the person being wagon'd turns out to be Town, then everyone that contributed to the bandwagon would be suspect. Also, bandwagons can snowball rather easily, so 2 votes can turn into 3, then 3 into 4...see where I'm going with this? Bandwagons aren't inherently wrong, but it can be rather easy to get them to snowball out of control. That's why I'm especially wary of possible wagons starting on the first or second page.

Okay, that makes more sense. I still think you are guilty of assuming a slippery slope will occur in your snowball effect, but that reasoning is far easier to follow than your original bandwagon post was. By the way, dimaba actually voted for you on the third page, after a day.

[The Tracker]

...My point was it was still early on in the game day. I just remembered it was recent, not the page number it was on.

[Yosarian2]

@Ray,
Rayfrost-making jokes about who is scumbuddies with Mod, you tried very well i might add to befriend me early on in the game possibly so if you get caught the next suspect is me, trying to get bandwagon voting going on tracker, you seem anxious of everyones scum opinions without putting forward too much of an opinion yourself

Dimaba-backing rayfrost right away unconditionally

tracker-cause tracker did put forward the lynching lurkers, even if tracker was saying it off the bat

does that help

Hmm. So, you suspect Rayfrost for "starting a bandwagon" on Tracker, you suspect Dimaba for following Rayfrost in voting for Tracker, but at the same time, you also suspect tracker?

If you suspect tracker, then why do you feel it's scummy for other people to suspect tracker?

[Yosarian2]

The only kind of lurking that is considered scummy is

active lurking

, which is the posting of stuff that is not helpful for scumhunting instead of aiding in scumhunting.

No. All lurking is always a scumtell, and should always be treated as a scumtell. Period.

My point is, I never NOT called it a last resort. I made a relatively vague statement and got more specific when I started being attacked for it. I said I liked it, but then if you notice I said there was a glaring problem with it, which was following that policy and relying on it to find scum can and will lead to a mislynch.

There's nothing wrong with voting for a lurker, or even with advocating lynching lurkers (lynching lurkers is still awesome and should be done more often). But I'm not really happy with the way you seem to be backtracking here.

If you think lurkers should be lynched, then say so. If you thought so but now have changed your mind, then say that. What it looks like you are doing now is denying your earlier position because you're drawing fire for it, and that seems scummy to me.

[The Tracker]

If it appears that way, then sorry. But everything I said so far is true. I support LaL policy, but I won't do it unless I absolutely have to.

Anyway, I'm not finding cdub (I think that's his name) too Town right now. He's done nothing but lurk then made a vote then excused his lurking. If he explained his vote, that's one thing, but he didn't so I'm starting to find him rather suspicious.

[Jackabomb]

Yikes, I'm away for the night and all this happens.

QTF. I know exactly what you mean, mate.

Cdubs, I want an explanation in your next post. Until then, my vote lies with you.

Whoever asked if "you would rather lynch an active lurker or an active player who appears scummy?", It depends on how scummy. I would generally choose the active, though.

He appeared out of the blue and used 90% of RayFrost's argument against me. It could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch, and obviously doing that is scummy. Even if he believes in the cockles of his little heart I am scum and he is truly Town, at the very least starting to turn a vote into a wagon is suspicous.

Or it could be normal bandwagoning. I don't actually mind a bandwagon on a suspicious person, even if I don't personally suspect them. I'm not likely to hop on a wagon I don't find suspicious, of course, but if I can see a reasonable interpretation of a player's actions as scum, I don't mind people who are suspicious of him making a bandwagon on him, even if I don't personally think he's mafia.

Now, I don't endorse lynching someone in bandwagon fashion. With a bandwagon, not everybody who joins has to provide their own reasons or additional arguments. It is helpful, but not necessary. Lynching in this fashion, is totally unacceptable, and my FOS and probably vote as well go to whoever quickhammered, as it is called, the next day.

Oh, it generally isn't a good idea to tell your subject that you're voting them for a reaction. It invalidates the results of the reaction test.

[RayFrost]

Bandwagons need 3 votes at minimum to be bandwagons, kthx.

re active lurker vs scummy player with some pro-town stuff, it depends upon the strength of the scumtells and the strength of the towntells. If they were highly pro-town with a minor scumtell that popped up only a couple times, I'd lynch the active lurker, etc.

@ Yos2 - I find that lurking is a minor scumtell relative to the ones that I find on active players, would you agree? I also think active lurking is something that is easier to see than inactivity, since a person could've been hospitalized and thus be able to come on, but we wouldn't be able to tell due to them not being on...

[Jackabomb]

@Chronos: Let's see if I can try to explain this better: if a bandwagon is started and the person being wagon'd turns out to be Town, then everyone that contributed to the bandwagon would be suspect. Also, bandwagons can snowball rather easily, so 2 votes can turn into 3, then 3 into 4...see where I'm going with this? Bandwagons aren't inherently wrong, but it can be rather easy to get them to snowball out of control. That's why I'm especially wary of possible wagons starting on the first or second page.

Actually, the only people on the bandwagon who would be most suspect are: a)The fifth voter, if the vote had been a quicklynch or a vote in spite of the defendant having produced evidence sufficient to negate the arguments against him.

b)Anyone who had voted without a reason at all. People who were active when negating evidence was produced, yet did not heed it.

c)Someone who had driven the wagon on shaky logic.

I said I would do this earlier, but forgot.

Unvote;
Vote: cdubs