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

[Haylen]

The Top of the Page Vote count

The Tracker: RayFrost, cdubs
cdubs: LordChronos, Jackabomb
LordChronos: Yosarian2
Dimaba: easjo682

Not voting: Dimaba, The Tracker, Doctor

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

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch

Lots of Love,
Hayl

PS. Can you please put votes and unvotes and the beginning of a line, it makes them clearer to see

[The Tracker]

Hey, dimaba, doesn't lynching somebody because they vote without reason sound rather familiar?
Too familiar.[/color]

Certainly does. Didn't help us much at the time, but they certainly did deserve it.

@Jackabomb: do you feel cdubs' presented reasons are strong enough to make the initial reasonless vote irrelevant?

@Doctor: what scumtells have you noticed about my play other than the would-be bandwagon? I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't see them.

I am also going to

unvote

. I have said earlier that the original scumtells on Tracker (LaL-policy and non-participation) have become less valid and in my last post I also mentioned that my later reason for suspicion (agressive response without answering question) has also become less valid. Tracker is at L-2 I think it's better if I withdraw my vote for now.

I didnt write that quote you're quoting, that was Tracker

'Twas Jackabomb, my friend. I never played with Dimaba before.

[easjo682]

anyway its about time i got some sleeping action done

[Yosarian2]

I want to know how being in support of LaL is scummy. In my opinion it's a damn null tell and shouldn't even figure in to whether you think someone's scum or not.

Well, of course it is; actually, aggressively going after lurkers has to be considered a town tell, if anything, since it's pretty much inherently more pro-town then not going after lurkers. I don't think that's why people are suspicious of you, though.

[LordChronos]

@easjo

Would you mind answering my question in post 166?

@dimba

I'm not Jackabomb, but I also have a vote on cdubs. Personally, I was not particularly convinced by his excuses. His accusations of Yosarian, and Tracker trying to lynch him on a policy lynch of lurkers are simply untrue. This means either he hasn't actually read through the thread carefully, or he is intentionally skewing the matter to try to divert attention to himself, which I would find scummy. Also, I find his excuse of not realizing there was more than one page a little suspicious.

@cdubs

Please get an avatar, it makes it easier to quickly tell whose posts are whose.

[LordChronos]

EBWOP

Meant to say @dimaba, not @ dimba.

[The Tracker]

I'm not Jackabomb, but I also have a vote on cdubs. Personally, I was not particularly convinced by his excuses. His accusations of Yosarian, and Tracker trying to lynch him on a policy lynch of lurkers are simply untrue. This means either he hasn't actually read through the thread carefully, or he is intentionally skewing the matter to try to divert attention to himself, which I would find scummy. Also, I find his excuse of not realizing there was more than one page a little suspicious.

I'm willing to give him the BotD for now due to newness, but if his next explanation doesn't turn off the scum alarm going off in my head then I'm voting him for sure.

@Yos: I was grilled for a page and a half (estimate, of course) over that policy alone by Jack, and Ray, dimaba, and dubs all listed it as reasons to vote for me. Of course since dubs is starting to set off alarm bells in my head as of now, I'm taking his vote with a grain of salt.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I agree with both of you about cdub. dub's first thing he did when he got back was to over-react to having 1 lurker vote on him. And Chronos has a point; if dub thought I was attacking him, when I was actually going out of my way to defend him, then he wasn't paying attention to the thread; also, if you attack someone because they're attacking you, that's scummy anyway.

Unvote: LordChronos

Vote:Cdub

[The Tracker]

if you attack someone because they're attacking you, that's scummy anyway.

Can you elaborate on this for me please? I use it as part of my playstyle to get a reaction and otherwise glean information for later. Reasoning is if it's scum attacking me, I can drop them in the hot seat and if it's Town then the argument will eventually blow itself out.

[Doctor]

@Doctor: what scumtells have you noticed about my play other than the would-be bandwagon? I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't see them.

Other than the bandwagon, I really cannot think of any, but when i wake i will reread the thread and get back to you, im quite tired I've just had the worst night of work I've ever had and had to stay 4 hours late.

FOS Cdubs

Your first post was a random vote on me WELL after the random vote stage, when you are called on this, you say you didn't realize there where more pages, yet we were 2-3 days into this. Seems unlikely, don't misread this as me being anal about the vote on me just the lack of reason here is what I'm getting at.

Then your next few posts are attacking The tracker, whom many of us have pressured about the LaL policy, so he could be viewed as a Weak pro-town, and without any other input other than what has already been stated by others you start attacking him, keep in mind this is your first real post.

This seems Scummy to me,you could have been just lurking the last few days waiting on someone to appear weak on the pro-town qualities to attack them, and attacked at the first oppurtunity to try to get a lynch, of course this is still speculation, but it is plausible and has me suspicious.

[Yosarian2]

if you attack someone because they're attacking you, that's scummy anyway.

Can you elaborate on this for me please? I use it as part of my playstyle to get a reaction and otherwise glean information for later. Reasoning is if it's scum attacking me, I can drop them in the hot seat and if it's Town then the argument will eventually blow itself out.

It's usually refered to as an OMGUS vote (which stands for "Oh My God you Suck", basically voting someone just because they're voting you without any real reason.)

Basically, if you're town, you should not vote for someone just because they're voting you. No matter if they're voting you or not, your main priority should be to find and lynch scum, so you be using your vote to go after someone who you think is most likely to be scum, not just because they're voting you.

On the other hand, scum don't really care who gets lynched, so long as it's not them or their buddy, so there's no reason a scum wouldn't want to go after someone who's attacking them, in the hopes of getting them to back off, making them nervous, confusing the issue, or making them seem untrustworthy to the rest of the town.

It's not a very strong scum tell, because it's not a very unusual mistake (a lot of people will get mad you're voting them, no matter what). But I do think it is a scum tell; it's something a scum is more likely to do then a town, because they have more reason to.

(Also, if someone is attacking you and you do think they're scum, if you have a good reason to suspect them, then you should vote them. The OMGUS stuff only applies if you vote them mostly because you don't like that they voted you.)

[The Tracker]

Ah, okay. So you're referring to OMGUS stuff, not scumhunting counterattacks. I got you. Thanks much, Yos.

[Jackabomb]

Anti town is the definition of scummy.

Sorry to rain on your parade, mac, but this just isn't true. It is quite possible to be anti-town without being scum. It's very common in newbie games, actually. Right now, I'm getting a particularly anti-town read off of you, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're scum, now does it? If you want to know why:

Your very first post, you voted a guy without any reason whatsoever. The only possible answers are that you were scum hoping to gain from the wagon that had been going on earlier...Or that you told the truth in your explanation.

However, if this is the case, it means you posted without reading the game thread at all. Most assuredly anti-town, and something I think is a bit more likely to come from scum than from town.

His explanation was far too convenient anyway. My vote stays put for now.

[Jackabomb]

Oh, and my vote is not yet FTL.

[easjo682]

@LordChronos

I assume that your reasoning for this is the same as earlier?

mostly although he seems to have made good protown arguements since

[LordChronos]

@LordChronos

I assume that your reasoning for this is the same as earlier?

mostly although he seems to have made good protown arguements since

Easjo, if he has made good protown arguments since you presented your earlier reasoning, why have you voted him? Wouldn't that make him a less desirable candidate to vote against, rather than a more desirable one?

On a different topic, what do you think of the situation with cdubs?

[Jackabomb]

EBWOB AS APPLICABLE TO POST 187:

The only possible answers are that you were scum hoping to gain from the wagon that had been going on earlier

While this remains a point of argument, I have an additional point very similar. Originally I was thinking more of this point than the other, so things are slightly awkward:

I think Cdubs was looking for an opportunistic scum lynch with Tracker. Yosarian has also displayed a degree of vote hopping, however he provides an amount of reason for most of his votes. Cdubs only sounds like Revenge Vote.

[LordChronos]

I think Cdubs was looking for an opportunistic scum lynch with Tracker. Yosarian has also displayed a degree of vote hopping, however he provides an amount of reason for most of his votes. Cdubs only sounds like Revenge Vote.

By your comment that cdubs was looking for an opportunistic scum lynch with Tracker, do you mean that you think they are scum working together to lynch someone innocent? Or do you mean that Tracker is scum that cdubs wanted lynched?

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian has also displayed a degree of vote hopping, however he provides an amount of reason for most of his votes.

"Vote hopping"? I've only voted for 2 people so far this game.

Also, pro-town people should be willing to move their votes frequently.

[Yosarian2]

EBWOP: Before someone corrects me, I wasn't including the random vote in that "2 votes" thing.

In any case, it dosn't matter; pro-town people should vote early and aggressively.

[Jackabomb]

Yes, but not willy-nilly. Sorry about the misconception. Disregard.

[easjo682]

@LordChronos

I assume that your reasoning for this is the same as earlier?

mostly although he seems to have made good protown arguements since

Easjo, if he has made good protown arguments since you presented your earlier reasoning, why have you voted him? Wouldn't that make him a less desirable candidate to vote against, rather than a more desirable one?

On a different topic, what do you think of the situation with cdubs?

yes I'm thinking about changing my vote but rather than unvote, and find a couple hours later that i want to vote for so and so, i waiting until there is a definite somebody i want to vote for.

on cdubs, I honestly don't know, the best i can say is he could be a lurker trying to throw suspicion off himself, or he genuinely does has limited access, i which case i don't see why he signed up for a game knowing that would happen, could genuinely be townie, honestly i don't know which on of the above it is...

currently watching him, to get a better feel

[easjo682]

Also

V/LA

for the next 24 or so hours

[LordChronos]

I will be out all day tomorrow, so don't expect me to post much, if at all.

[cdubs]

Okay, so I'm going to re-explain some stuff in further detail. I am extermely computer illiterate. I actually had a friend who is familiar with forum mafia explain to me how to bold things. I have no experience with forums of any kind whatsoever. When I logged on, I saw the first page and did not realize there were other pages. Yes this means I posted without having read the whole thread because I did not know the rest of the thread was there, and as a result posted an rv well past the rv stage.

Onto the lurker voting thing. Yos2, I fully agree with you that it is important to get rid of lurkers. I completely buy that towns lose when they let lurkers live. However I do not think several days into the game is early enough to establish the some one will lurk for the entirity of the game. I have no people voting against some one who is lurking, however I feel that to do so in the first few days of the game would be premature.

That being said, my vote for tracker is not omgus. Though I am pointing out old and very discussed things, just because its old or discussed does not make it irrelevant. Though it is true that tracker never specifically voted based on lurking, he did suggest voting against people who had not posted yet. I feel he was waiting to see how discussion of this went before he cast a bandwagon vote. Yes I understand getting rid of lurkers is necessary but to suggest doing so very early in the game does seem scummy. Then when pressured for it, tracker said he doesn't like policy lynching when he was previously endorsing. He said it should only be done when there are no better options, yet to suggest we get "rid of them" so early is by no means a situation where there are no better options. Forgive me if my harping on this point is obnoxious, but I feel as though people feel it has been resolved when I do not think it has. I think tracker is scum. I repeat this is not an omgus vote. I truly feel he was hoping to allow conversation for a quick and easy vote that would allow him to vote guilt free, and since he got heat for that the things he's been saying seem very scummy.