Newbie 940 - Game over

[Nachomamma8]

Just a note, didn't you do this once yourself???

Nope, I claimed scum to incriminate Mae because I thought deadline was nearer than it was... >.>. This shouldn't be done in a Newbie game for the sake of simplicity, however.

How far does someone's "newbie" status affect your interaction with them in this game? By interaction, I mean not only your direct and indirect conversational interaction with them, but also your willingness to suspect them and so on.

Newbie status alone doesn't affect my interaction with people; if something's scummy, I have no problem attacking it, regardless of your join date. The real read comes from the justification for your actions; if you seem like you didn't know why what you did was scummy, I'll explain it and move on. But if you lurk and hide from me, you can expect me to crank up the pressure tenfold .

I found Die's decision a scum-tell, as there's no particular reason to avoid an L-3, IMO. At least, it's the most scum-tell post I have found so far ITT

unvote: Die Prediger
Vote: [no]

It's not the scummiest thing I've seen just yet. Seriously though, L-1 on page two over that? A couple of questions for you;

1. What is your experience with Mafia (how many games have you completed and in what formats - rough estimates are fine)

2. Why do you think what Die did was so scummy? Is there anything else he did, or was it only the L-3 comment?

I found your vote post odd. For one, if Die's scumtell wasn't the scummiest thing you had seen, then why were you voting him as opposed to voting the person who dropped the bigger scumtell? Also, you say that you give newbies breathing room early even if they do things that you would've tried to lynch more experienced players over already. Why didn't you give [no] any breathing room here?

Vote: Thor665

[AurorusVox]

Pulindar, care to explain your reasons for your vote? I called [no] out on voting without saying anything, so it would be hypocritical of me to not extend you the same courtesy.

^my question still stands (it was about your vote on Jerako)

Also, don't you have to unvote before you can place a new vote...? In our previous game, there was quite a big deal made of the fact that someone didn't unvote properly before they voted someone else...O_O"

[Pulindar]

Vote revocations should be bolded or they may not be counted (e.g. Unvote: Player or Unvote). Unvotes are not necessary before changing votes.

So nope, don't need to unvote.

As for that question... I don't want to answer it just yet, but I will later. If I answer now it'll ruin my plan

[AurorusVox]

Ugh, so many slight deviations on the rules with different mods Sorrrry >_<

Ok, but I'm watching you, super-owl.

[Thor665]

I found your vote post odd. For one, if Die's scumtell wasn't the scummiest thing you had seen, then why were you voting him as opposed to voting the person who dropped the bigger scumtell?

...huh? I brought that up because of [no]'s action. I then unvote Die and vote [no], which seems to be self-explanatory as far as your question.

Also, you say that you give newbies breathing room early even if they do things that you would've tried to lynch more experienced players over already. Why didn't you give [no] any breathing room here?

Kindly reference your own answer about newbies. One cannot extract newbie tells out of whole cloth, pressure must be added to the mix with a slight simmering of accusations before the newbie flavor comes out.

Also, hi Nacho, I helped lynch you once.

What is your read of Pulindar's obvious buddying attempts with me?

[[no]]

hey its cool u guys are talking about me a lot. i feel loved :aww:

[Jerako]

@[no]

Not merely because it was mentioned, but because it made sense for a moment. I no longer abide by it.

I'm not accusing you of voting because it was mentioned. It seems more to me like you were hopping on the wagon, using other people's arguments to mask your motivations for doing so, especially since you said that you had other reasons, of your own, that you still have not provided.

That isn't a retraction of my weak FoS. I'm wondering why he thought it was suspicious to answer a question intended for someone else. It seems it was a lame attempt to get people to jump on that bandwagon.

Perhaps we need to parse definitions, here. This is how I understand the word:

1.being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2.unnecessary or needless.

I read it as the second point, since as you had hardly given one reason at the point, it can hardly be defined as "more than sufficient" to provide another, especially as you yourself admit it's another weak one. I'm not saying I think that you retracted your second stated reason for voting Prediger. I'm saying I find it incredibly suspicious how you seem to be suggesting that your reasons for voting are so inherently obvious that they don't need to be stated, even though you've hardly given any. It seems to me like you were trying to pretend you had a concrete reason for voting (which you did in fact have, if you are scum), while avoiding actually giving those concrete reasons.

To avoid any confusion, which I'm beginning to wonder is what's happening here (since your writing style is a bit unclear, I'm curious if English is not your first language?), please describe to me what your reasons for initially voting for DP are (even if you no longer abide to them. I'm trying to find out what exactly it is that you

were

abiding to.)

---

@Prediger

In post 51 you seem to be suggesting that the reason you were not quicklynched is because the mafia were either A) Already voting for you, or B) Hadn't even seen that it was possible yet.

What about a third option? The mafia, I think, are going to be unlikely to quickhammer, especially before 24 RL hours have actually passed, because it's going to be

extremely

obvious by doing so, that they are scum.

You seem overly paranoid about being associated with the lynch, to the point of withholding your vote when it will place somebody within lynching range. Why? If you are confident enough that your vote belongs on them, why withhold it, just because there's other people who are also voting?

[Die Prediger]

Actually the twilight question was in the mod's first post and someone (pulindar?) did quote it to you. Why are you yelling about this?

First off Totally just finished a newbie game where town didn't loose a single person. super happy

Vote Die

I did quote the mod on that, Thor is right.

I'd also like to say... Thor stop stealing my ideas.

Thor asks good questions, town points for Thor.

Sorry, but i re-read again and i couldnt find it. Are you sure its there? Can you point me exactly please?

[silverbullet999]

Also, hi Nacho, I helped lynch you once.

Classic welcome

[Nachomamma8]

...huh? I brought that up because of [no]'s action. I then unvote Die and vote [no], which seems to be self-explanatory as far as your question.

Unvote

I thought you were trying to discount no's reasoning by saying that the scumtell wasn't that scummy, so disregard that post. That was a fun game, aside being deadline lynched because I wanted to give a newbie a chance to play and town ignoring my top read as scum for far so long...

Pul's obvious buddying attempts of you is just classic Pulindar. As scum, it helps certain townies want to lynch him less, and as town, it makes scum think twice before NKing him.

AurorusVox, who's scum?

[Die Prediger]

@Prediger

In post 51 you seem to be suggesting that the reason you were not quicklynched is because the mafia were either A) Already voting for you, or B) Hadn't even seen that it was possible yet.

What about a third option? The mafia, I think, are going to be unlikely to quickhammer, especially before 24 RL hours have actually passed, because it's going to be

extremely

obvious by doing so, that they are scum.

You seem overly paranoid about being associated with the lynch, to the point of withholding your vote when it will place somebody within lynching range. Why? If you are confident enough that your vote belongs on them, why withhold it, just because there's other people who are also voting?

Yes, it can be that 3rd option. But it also can be the first ones. And they way [no] voted, with not a single reason in his post, was to quicklynch. After that, he posted a lot of excuses saying why he voted me and that he didnt know it was not a good idea to quicklynch.

About the other question: Why do you think its paranoia? And I am not sure about everyone here, so yes, I dont want to lynch someone before we have more things to work with. Hiphop didnt even post yet. I am not confident enough about my vote, of course. It can be the biggest scumtell, but OTOH it can be simply a newbie mistake.

I give you the quest back: are you confident enough about your vote?

[[no]]

@ Die. I gave a reason right after one poster found it "unnerving". And why is "i didn't know it wasn't a good idea to quicklynch" not a good reason if I've barely played mafia at all, and the one game I did play, did not involve quicklynching?

As for initially not giving a reason, you should go back to the link i gave showing the differing posting styles in my last game.

[Jerako]

About the other question: Why do you think its paranoia? And I am not sure about everyone here, so yes, I dont want to lynch someone before we have more things to work with. Hiphop didnt even post yet. I am not confident enough about my vote, of course. It can be the biggest scumtell, but OTOH it can be simply a newbie mistake.

I give you the quest back: are you confident enough about your vote?

Yes, I am as confident as I can be with my vote right now, for the reasons I stated above. This is why I voted. What makes me curious, however, is this:

I want to vote you, because for me you are lying (how you didnt see that?), but i wont, cause you would become L-1 and that would give scum a chance to hammer someone early in the game.

FoS [no]

And now, as youre back to L-3,

unvote
vote [no]

The way I interpret this, is "I find you very suspicious, and will vote for you, unless my vote could actually be used to lynch you, in which case I won't vote for you." It's even more odd while keeping in mind a couple more times you did this.

So, to start the RVS and dont get anyone on L-3, Ill

vote Pulindar

unvote
vote hiphop

for still not posting here - Nacho already has a vote on him. And i dont have anything about Thor to keep my vote on him.

Which leaves one, and only one vote that you made (your second, a vote on Thor), which did not directly reference the number of people who voted for somebody prior to your vote, as a reason for said vote. If not "paranoid", per se, it is at the very least something that you are clearly

very

concerned about.

[Die Prediger]

Yes, I am very concerned about lynching someone that is not scum. Arent you?

If [no] was on L-1 and you still hadnt voted, would you lynch him now?

[Die Prediger]

@Thor

You are more experienced than me. For me you are playing like a perfect townie. You ask questions on almost everyone, you are incisive about them, you try to dont let anything uncovered about the other players, at the same time you dont give anything to us to acuse you of being scum. So i have some quests for you:

1. Is this always your gamestyle? If not, considering you are town now, do you act different when being a mafia?

2. Isnt your gamestyle so "perfect" we can think you are a very good player surrounded by some newbies that would buy that you are town by that gamestyle?

----

To the other ICs and SEs:

How this kind of gameplay is seen in the experienced games of mafia?

[Jerako]

Ugh, I just made a rather lengthy post and it was totally eaten by the interwebs when I clicked the preview button and failed to connect to MS

At least I'll probably be a bit more concise this time.

Yes, I am very concerned about lynching someone that is not scum. Arent you?

If [no] was on L-1 and you still hadnt voted, would you lynch him now?

That seems like a moot point to me, since I already have voted, and your avoidance of the vote was on L-2, not the hammer. Neither of which applies to the situation.

You currently placed him at L-2. Are you going to unvote if somebody brings him to L-1 again?

Hypothetically though, if we were in that situation, no, I would not vote for [no] right now if I was the hammer vote, until he roleclaims first, which I learned is a Good Thing in my last game. If his roleclaim is unsatisfactory though, I would be glad to lynch him, especially since I'm even more convinced, now that he's completely ignored my last post (although he's posted since then, so he's seen it), which seems to suggest that he really is just being vague about his intentions. He doesn't want to give his reasons for the vote, I think, because he never had any in the first place.

Yes, if somebody gets lynched who ends up being town, it's a mislynch. This is an error, not a failure, however. It's not the end of the world, and I'm not going to let the chance of it happening keep me from voting for somebody who I'm certain is scum. Isn't it also possible that we're going to hit the actual scum? I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that those we find the most suspicious, could be the most suspicious because they are actually mafia. However, even if the lynched does flip town, we still have more information than we did before, which helps us to better find the actual mafia on D2. This is a game where the town wins by becoming more informed, so any more information can only help us.

I find your wishy-washy stance to be suspicious. The purpose of a vote is to bring about a lynch, yes? So, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish by voting in a manner that specifically avoids lynching? Clearly, from your posts, you find [no] to be suspicious. On a scale of 1-10, how suspicious would that be, exactly?

[Thor665]

1. Is this always your gamestyle? If not, considering you are town now, do you act different when being a mafia?

That's an interesting question that I'm afraid I cannot properly answer for you. I've never had a game on mafiascum as scum (well, except one, but I replaced in during night phase for a player who flaked and had a cop identify me before I'd even posted once - so there's not much to get off my scum meta in that one). I would certainly hope that I would play differently in some ways, but probably not in a dramatic way. Certainly my gamestyle was not really different the time I played a Cop or a Doc - if that helps.

2. Isnt your gamestyle so "perfect" we can think you are a very good player surrounded by some newbies that would buy that you are town by that gamestyle?

My gameplay is "perfect" because I am full of awesome. As far as your question here, I'm not sure I'm following it - you appear to be asking me to justify why I am acting so much like a townie and not doing anything scummy? My reverse of the question would be - why aren't all of you who are also townies doing the same so it will be easy to find scum? I see no value in having to defend myself for acting too townish.

How this kind of gameplay is seen in the experienced games of mafia?

Favorably.

To answer your twilight question;

8. Once a player is lynched the game enters twilight until I post a death scene; all players may continue to post.
9. Once you are killed (either via lynch or night kill) you may no longer post except for a brief “Bah!”-type post.

@Nachomamma8 - who is your current top suspect and why aren't you voting them?

@silverbullet - your last two posts contained no scumhunting (and I looked twice, wearing glasses even) here's a question to help you out; do you currently think [no]'s vote that put Die at L-1 was due to newbiness or due to scumminess, and why is that?

[Pulindar]

Pul's obvious buddying attempts of you is just classic Pulindar. As scum, it helps certain townies want to lynch him less, and as town, it makes scum think twice before NKing him.

I'd like to point at my record, never Lynched and never NKed except once by vig in a game where scum couldn't night kill. (system was flawed ) I replaced into a spot that could not face anything else .

Still, I have yet to die. and my win ratio is improving as I play too. Just got a perfect town win.

[Die Prediger]

1. Is this always your gamestyle? If not, considering you are town now, do you act different when being a mafia?

That's an interesting question that I'm afraid I cannot properly answer for you. I've never had a game on mafiascum as scum (well, except one, but I replaced in during night phase for a player who flaked and had a cop identify me before I'd even posted once - so there's not much to get off my scum meta in that one). I would certainly hope that I would play differently in some ways, but probably not in a dramatic way. Certainly my gamestyle was not really different the time I played a Cop or a Doc - if that helps.

2. Isnt your gamestyle so "perfect" we can think you are a very good player surrounded by some newbies that would buy that you are town by that gamestyle?

My gameplay is "perfect" because I am full of awesome. As far as your question here, I'm not sure I'm following it - you appear to be asking me to justify why I am acting so much like a townie and not doing anything scummy? My reverse of the question would be - why aren't all of you who are also townies doing the same so it will be easy to find scum? I see no value in having to defend myself for acting too townish.

I played this way in my first game and guess what: NK on N1. Why? No one suspected me, so I was useless to mafia. Does this happens often? Mafia players use to kill those who are certainly town?

How this kind of gameplay is seen in the experienced games of mafia?

Favorably.

So all the players tend to play that way? Or are there other gameplay ways that the players like?

To answer your twilight question;

8. Once a player is lynched the game enters twilight until I post a death scene; all players may continue to post.
9. Once you are killed (either via lynch or night kill) you may no longer post except for a brief “Bah!”-type post.

Thanks, i had not seen it. But i dont think it changes anything about the bandwagon vote by [no]. My question was not directly related to any action.

[silverbullet999]

@silverbullet - your last two posts contained no scumhunting (and I looked twice, wearing glasses even) here's a question to help you out; do you currently think [no]'s vote that put Die at L-1 was due to newbiness or due to scumminess, and why is that?

Hahahaha yeah i was feeling lighthearted. Alright for your second question... i feel like it was noobiness in being scum... though it could just be plain ol noobiness. i think its more "hey... i'm mafia... hey die has 3 votes... i'll throw a vote real fast and hope my mafia partner (or somebody else) throws the lynching vote!" If this situation is true... i somewhat suspect hiphop simply because the quick lynch didn't occur and hip hasn't done anything yet. I'm not feeling 100 percent on this though so i'm holding off and waiting what the overall opinion is and such.

Still, I have yet to die. and my win ratio is improving as I play too. Just got a perfect town win. Smile

Just curious... how do you get a perfect town win? doesn't one townie have to die at least? Or do you mean you lynched the two mafias in 2 days

[Die Prediger]

Ugh, I just made a rather lengthy post and it was totally eaten by the interwebs when I clicked the preview button and failed to connect to MS

At least I'll probably be a bit more concise this time.

Yes, I am very concerned about lynching someone that is not scum. Arent you?

If [no] was on L-1 and you still hadnt voted, would you lynch him now?

That seems like a moot point to me, since I already have voted, and your avoidance of the vote was on L-2, not the hammer. Neither of which applies to the situation.

You currently placed him at L-2. Are you going to unvote if somebody brings him to L-1 again?

Probably not this time. I am really not sure about [no]. I thought that being close to a lynch would make him at least say something more than

hey its cool u guys are talking about me a lot. i feel loved :aww:

before he getrs lynched. He also does not try to scumhunt (does he already knows who are the mafia, thats why?). So I will keep my vote on him until he or others change my mind.

I find your wishy-washy stance to be suspicious. The purpose of a vote is to bring about a lynch, yes? So, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish by voting in a manner that specifically avoids lynching? Clearly, from your posts, you find [no] to be suspicious. On a scale of 1-10, how suspicious would that be, exactly?

Im not certain i could atribute a number to that, but it wouldnt be a 1 nor a 10. Lets say i suspect more on him than on all the others.

How about you, how would you answer your own question?

[Die Prediger]

EBWOP: Forgot to answer:

Avoid lynching in the beggining of the game, even before one player hadnt posted yet, seems to me a good idea. I dont feel good to do it before the almost lynched player has the chance to defend himself.

[[no]]

@[no]

Not merely because it was mentioned, but because it made sense for a moment. I no longer abide by it.

I'm not accusing you of voting because it was mentioned. It seems more to me like you were hopping on the wagon, using other people's arguments to mask your motivations for doing so, especially since you said that you had other reasons, of your own, that you still have not provided.

What other reasons? I clearly stated two reasons. Is there any other that I forgot?

That isn't a retraction of my weak FoS. I'm wondering why he thought it was suspicious to answer a question intended for someone else. It seems it was a lame attempt to get people to jump on that bandwagon.

Perhaps we need to parse definitions, here. This is how I understand the word:

1.being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2.unnecessary or needless.

I read it as the second point, since as you had hardly given one reason at the point, it can hardly be defined as "more than sufficient" to provide another, especially as you yourself admit it's another weak one. I'm not saying I think that you retracted your second stated reason for voting Prediger. I'm saying I find it incredibly suspicious how you seem to be suggesting that your reasons for voting are

so inherently obvious that they don't need to be stated, even though you've hardly given any.

It seems to me like you were trying to pretend you had a concrete reason for voting (which you did in fact have, if you are scum), while avoiding actually giving those concrete reasons.

huh? I was saying his accusation was superfluous, because I think it's stupid. otherwise i dont know what you're talking about

To avoid any confusion, which I'm beginning to wonder is what's happening here (since your writing style is a bit unclear, I'm curious if English is not your first language?), please describe to me what your reasons for initially voting for DP are (even if you no longer abide to them. I'm trying to find out what exactly it is that you

were

abiding to.)

I originally voted for DP because he stated that he did not want to put an L-3 on someone. I originally interpreted this as him not wanting to vote for one of his own scum buddies, but then i realized i was one of the people who was voted for before he posted, so i didn't think that explanation was possible

[[no]]

and DP that was a joke. please don't take it seriously

[Die Prediger]

I found Die's decision a scum-tell, as there's no particular reason to avoid an L-3, IMO. At least, it's the most scum-tell post I have found so far ITT

I originally voted for DP because he stated that he did not want to put an L-3 on someone. I originally interpreted this as him not wanting to vote for one of his own scum buddies, but then i realized i was one of the people who was voted for before he posted, so i didn't think that explanation was possible

In fact my reaction was about a L-3 on ME, not SOMEONE. So it was not about my votes, but about the votes on ME.

Contradictory, no?