Newbie 940 - Game over

[Pulindar]

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

we had a doctor, and thus the night kill was foiled. They only had one chance at a night kill as we found and lynched them both right away.

So No, not a single townie died in that game. I found our first scum, though it was a deadline lynch and I hadn't been quite sure about it. The second scum I wasn't sure until the middle of the next day. You can check it out on my wiki... ooo I need to update.

[Die Prediger]

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

Thats exactly what I am doing. I was expecting you would post something more serious.

I have 2 opinions about you:

1. You didnt liked to receive a Vanilla Townie role, so you are not playing that serious.

2. You are scum.

[silverbullet999]

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.

I think no is referring to your intial rvs vote die

[[no]]

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

Thats exactly what I am doing. I was expecting you would post something more serious.

I have 2 opinions about you:

1. You didnt liked to receive a Vanilla Townie role, so you are not playing that serious.

I am being serious. it was one light-hearted joke. i felt like saying it, but if that's going to make everyone suspicious, then i'll stop

[Die Prediger]

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.

I think no is referring to your intial rvs vote die

Alright, i misinterpreted this one.

[Thor665]

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?

Yes, Mafia generally kill the most helpful players to town (be it power roles, proven townies, et al) I have been NKed Night 1 once, and in almost all my other games was at least discussed heavily as a likely Night 1 target by the scum team. This doesn't worry me, as there's always another game on mafiascum, and them killing me is in some ways a compliment in any case. Besides, town's goal is to catch scum, not to last till the end of the game. Barring a slick Doc; *somebody* is going to be NKed Night 1, that's just the way it goes.

I personally see no advantage to town playing scummy in the hopes scum ignore you. Yeah, that might work, but so what? By the time you get to endgame everyone thinks you are scummy and it's easier for the mafia to get you lynched.

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

There are as many different playstyles as there are stars in the sky, my child. I have never had anyone accuse my general play style of being obnoxious or bothersome or scummy. There are other players whose playstyle is called one or all of those things. Some of those players are quite good at Mafia, so my advice is generally to go with what you think works - that's probably the best plot.

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.

Ah, ah, ah. You *did* express doubt of [no] because of him apparently not knowing the rules that were written on the first page. This does at least show it's a mistake town can make and thus it isn't a valid scum tell (unless you're also scum and [no] is your partner). To my mind it just adds to the newb cloud around [no]. Yeah, he might be newb scum, but I want to see more scum evidence and less newb evidence.

@[no] - who are you voting right now? If you're not voting anyone why is that? (if your answer is that you don't have any good suspects - my next question will be "what are you doing to find scummy suspects?" feel free to answer that one too if you need to.)

[Jerako]

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

Honestly, it just dropped quite a bit. Now I'd put it at about 6-7 (slightly leaning to "he's scum", but not much. At the time of my last post it was a 9, but now that he's actually answered my question I'm not so sure, and now that I've been thinking about it more, I think Thor has a point, that it's more of a newb tell than a scum tell. Not sure I'd be willing to hammer anymore, but he definitely needs the pressure, so my vote still stays. More to follow.

---

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

The following quote is the post in question which has bothered me a lot since I first read it.

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?

Partially, yes. But I won't bandwagon if i don't think it has any sense to it. I also thought that possibly the previous users who were voted before him were potential scum and therefore didn't want to vote for them, but then i realized i was one of them (and i am not scum) so...

I'll explain why this is so, by breaking it up, and how it seems to read.

Partially, yes.

My interpretation: "His avoidance of L-3 is one reason I voted for him, but there are others."

But I won't bandwagon if i don't think it has any sense to it.

"I wouldn't be voting for him

without good reasons

"

I also thought that possibly the previous users who were voted before him were potential scum and therefore didn't want to vote for them, but then i realized i was one of them (and i am not scum) so...

"I thought he was avoiding L-3 so he doesn't vote for his scum partner, but I quickly realized that this is

not a good reason

"

So, it seems like you negated your only reason for voting in the very same post you gave it. If this isn't what you meant, please explain.

The only other reason you gave was here:

There however is also Die putting some kind of FOS on Aurorus for answering a question intended for someone else. Or is that just paranoia?

Again, I'm reading this as: "my second reason I also don't think is a very good reason." This makes me wonder what the original "sense" was behind joining the bandwagon, which is what I was asking you to provide.

The second one I think could be a FOS is because it's an obvious superfluous accusation [IMO].

But I don't think that's enough to make a decision.

So, "it" here, refers to DP's FoS? I thought you were talking about "the second one" (your second reason). Either way, you state here again,

that it's not enough to make a decision

.

So, with that in mind, what exactly was the "good sense" you saw?

Also, you are claiming that you had no idea that the fifth vote was an automatic lynch. What, then, did you make of this:

Oh, By the way, Nacho is at L-4 that means that 4 more votes will lynch him. I guess [no] is as well.

This is post six, it is

in addition to

the mod posts, and it can be found the post

directly above

DP's "I don't want to L-3 anybody" post (number 7). This is the primary reason I don't believe you when you say you had no idea whatsoever that you were pushing him so close to the lynch. What did you think these posts meant? How did you understand "L-3" and "L-1" to mean?

[silverbullet999]

Alright here's my thoughts on everything so far... (more of a note to myself but i figure you will all enjoy reading).

Right now I am suspicious of no for his vote on die (again could have just been a noobie mistake). I am also somewhat suspicious of die a little bit in that his actions and retorts in the beginning seemed a little bit paranoid.

I don't have much of a suspicion of others, though hiphop is on my watch list and I feel that perhaps die would have gotten lynched had hiphop been around.

I was going to type a couple of if this happens scenarios but decided against it in that it could be useful for the scum to manipulate my opinions.

I think my vote is still on die... and I'll keep it there since it doesn't seem like it will be too harmful until I get back on sometime tomorrow.

Time for me to sleep, good night.

[hiphop]

Vrk- your pm does not count as a prod. Or does it? I didn't have time to post yesterday night, so I didn't bother saying hi, not going to give anything important, just saying I am here. I hate that. You said you would replace me 48 hours in the game( even though I never wait 48 hours for posting), when in the rules it says players may ask for a prod after 48 hours, not a replacement. Please explain this to me.

No, it doesn't count as an official prod. I've had people confirm before and then disappear, hence the PM.

If want to meta me. All 9 games are in my wiki, (more games than Pulindar).

vote pulindar

for having less games than me, when you are the ic(and probably a better one) and I am not.

unvote

There I started the game with an rvs vote in my first post.

FoS [no] & Die Prediger

@ AV: yeah, I think three people have yet to post. Hiphop (SE) Jerako (New) and Nacho (IC)

For the next few hours I'm going to be silent, I want more people to join first. I will answer game questions though, if need be.

Vote Nacho

My random vote is back in place until more people join in conversation.

Anyways Pulindar I don't like this, you clearly finger someone (actually two people, yet put a vote in a a placeholder? Maybe you should look at this where people argue that the rvs is not a stage, but more of trasition to get the game going. So placing a random vote after the game has more than enough info to place a fos is scummy. Just because some people haven't posted yet does not mean you cannot use the info already here. In my first game people attacked me for voting someone that hadn't posted yet. They said I should be concentrating on the info at hand because there is plenty to go on.

You also state that you will be silent even though, you had the means to post. Almost like you want to hear others opinons and base yours somewhat after theirs. For that it at least deserves a

fos

Other than that, your play has been superb.

What I don't understand is how more people don't find die scummy. I mean his first vote clearly shows diversion. It also shows he doesn't want to get invovled. And his second post he uses the Omgus in a way, except says you put me at L-3, instead of you voted for me. Than for the next four posts he fluffs. Until Pulindatr asks him some questions. I believe bws help the town immensely. i tell you, you really should look at this game. I was scum in this game, and a bw was formed to bait the scum out. I was hit, line and sinker, as in lynched on the first day(only time ever lynched on the first day.) From than on I view bws in a different way. As for why didn't the mafia hammer, that is whole bunch of wifom. It is the idea of mafia to survive. Not reveal themselves in the first lynch.

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.

I know we are in the first days, but i dont like lurking.

What makes you think I was lurking I obviusly was flaking big difference.

In Iso 19 he finally scumhunts. But to me it seems he only does it because [no] almost got him lynched. Also only fos [no] at this time, because, again he doesn't want to bw. Why? To you die, what is the purpose of a vote?

In iso 25 he votes in a bw, only because he wants to keep [no] at L-2.

than in iso 30

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.

How can you say this is why you voted him? Just because you put him back at L-2, does not change the situation that he is at L-2. He is not anywhere closer to lynch that when AV had his vote on him. Yet even now you say if someone puts him at L-1 you will keep your vote. So why couldn't you put him at L-1? Didn't want to take the heat?

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.

Yet if someone had voted him before I posted you would have kept your vote on? How is that different?

Alright, i misinterpreted this one.

What no other remark on the subject? You quoted no's post for a reason.

In conclusion Die has done nothing, but defend himself, post theories on the game, and badger [no] on one thing that [no] did, and that was an attack on Die. I see no other scumhunting( if you can his badgering of [no]), and he has posted 36 times. 36 posts of fluff.

vote Die Prediger

Oh and Die it is good to act town. Town should not be afraid to be Nk. It must mean they are doing something right. Don't you agree?

Also I doubt if I was around Die would have been lynched. I would have put my vote on before he hit L-2. I doubt anyone else here would have put someone at L-1 besides [no] 2 pages in this game. Therefore he would not have been lynched.

In my experience regarding newbies such as [no], as in newbies that throw out a lot of tells. they have been scum 3 out of 5 times. So a little more than half. Either way not enough data to policy lynch.

[AurorusVox]

Nacho: You asked who my FoS currently lies on a fair few posts back, but it seems a lot was said whilst I was sleeping so sorry that this is coming late...

At the moment, I'm going through a process of elimination. I'm not entirely convinced that any one person is scum just yet. But there are a number of people that I think are town.

As for FoSes in this sense, I have a few, because some people I'm finding hard to read/don't know quite how to treat them. I have a very low-level scum read on the following person, so I'll vote for him and see what happens ^^

Vote: silverbullet999

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Apparently there is a SERIOUS LACK OF READING OR COMPREHENSION GOING ON IN THIS THREAD.

Before anyone posts another word, everyone needs to go read EVERY RULE in the 2nd post of this game. Rules vary slightly from Mod to Mod, and you should ALWAYS read every rules set in every game you play in.

Official Vote Count

[no] - 3 (Thor665, Jerako, Die Prediger)

Die Prediger - 3 (silverbullet999, Pulindar, hiphop)
silverbullet999 - 1 (AurorusVox)

Not Voting - 2 ([no], Nachomamma8)

5 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Tuesday, May 4.

[Thor665]

@hiphop - why is it important for you to establish that you have played more games then Pulindar?

We currently have two wagons that are in interesting competition with each other. One is [no] for suspicious speed in putting Die at L-1. The other is Die for aggressive, and perhaps poorly worded, assaults on [no].

It is possible the Die wagon has been started/encouraged by [no]'s scumbuddy as a way to protect his foolish/newbish partner. Conversely, [no] is potentially a very easy target for scum to lynch (not that Die isn't competing for the honor), and scum like that and would be likely to slip onto the wagon.

@Aurorus - why do you have no interest in the current two big wagons?

@Pulindar - you had previously expressed the belief that [no] was scum distancing/bussing his partner Die. How do you feel about this theory at this point?

[AurorusVox]

I was the one that started the [no] wagon as a RV, and have since jumped off of it. I've been convinced by the arguments going on around here that he is making newbie mistakes, and moreover, since looking at his previous experience with mafia, I'm not even sure that they can be considered "mistakes", but rather a misunderstanding. Like you, I'd rather get more of a read on him through the "newbie-cloud" than lynch him right now.

My second FoS along with silverbullet999 is indeed the Preacher. But I want to try to get more of a read on sb999 before putting a vote on DP, since DP's in a situation where he could get lynched pretty soon, and even sooner if I vote for him. Something about sb999 seems off to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet. And when the time comes, if I want to, I can always change by vote to DP. In effect, I'm watching the Preacher bandwagon, but I'm not yet ready to hitch a ride on it.

[[no]]

hmm, ok, i believe i have made this completely FUBAR, but im gonna try, again...if i survive day 1 i promise ill pay more attention...

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

The following quote is the post in question which has bothered me a lot since I first read it.

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?

Partially, yes. But I won't bandwagon if i don't think it has any sense to it. I also thought that possibly the previous users who were voted before him were potential scum and therefore didn't want to vote for them, but then i realized i was one of them (and i am not scum) so...

I'll explain why this is so, by breaking it up, and how it seems to read.

Partially, yes.

My interpretation: "His avoidance of L-3 is one reason I voted for him,

but there are others

."

umm ok :dunno: . That's your perogative to determine exactly how many reasons i should have, i guess

But I won't bandwagon if i don't think it has any sense to it.

"I wouldn't be voting for him

without good reasons

"

ok, just because it made sense to me for a moment doesn't mean it was a good reason upon further investigation.

I also thought that possibly the previous users who were voted before him were potential scum and therefore didn't want to vote for them, but then i realized i was one of them (and i am not scum) so...

I thought he was avoiding L-3 so he doesn't vote for his scum partner, but I quickly realized that this is

not a good reason

"

So, it seems like you negated your only reason for voting in the very same post you gave it. If this isn't what you meant, please explain.

I had the reason before i gave the reason. So it shouldn't be all that surprising (if you believe I had the reason in my head before i stated it) that i retracted the explanation the same post i made it

The only other reason you gave was here:

There however is also Die putting some kind of FOS on Aurorus for answering a question intended for someone else. Or is that just paranoia?

Again, I'm reading this as: "my second reason I also don't think is a very good reason." This makes me wonder what the original "sense" was behind joining the bandwagon, which is what I was asking you to provide.

It's definitely something to consider, but saying "it's not a very good reason" isn't the same as saying "it' isn't enough to make a decision"

The second one I think could be a FOS is because it's an obvious superfluous accusation [IMO].

But I don't think that's enough to make a decision.

So, "it" here, refers to DP's FoS? I thought you were talking about "the second one" (your second reason). Either way, you state here again,

that it's not enough to make a decision

.

So, with that in mind, what exactly was the "good sense" you saw?

DPs FoS

was

my second reason. what are you talking about?

Also, you are claiming that you had no idea that the fifth vote was an automatic lynch.

What, then, did you make of this:

Oh, By the way, Nacho is at L-4 that means that 4 more votes will lynch him. I guess [no] is as well.

This is post six, it is

in addition to

the mod posts, and it can be found the post

directly above

DP's "I don't want to L-3 anybody" post (number 7). This is the primary reason I don't believe you when you say you had no idea whatsoever that you were pushing him so close to the lynch. What did you think these posts meant? How did you understand "L-3" and "L-1" to mean?

Now this is interesting. Where did I state that I didn't know it took 5 votes to lynch, and that when that number was reached, the lynch was cast?

[silverbullet999]

Something about sb999 seems off to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet

Hahaha I think it's cause i've been both serious and not so throughout different times?

Either way, would you like to ask me some questions? I'll be glad to answer them to clear up or enable you to get a better read on me.

[AurorusVox]

I think your FoSes and setting up of lynches (through your "If x, then y" statements) is a little scummy. It's what is putting a thorn in my side with you. Can you tell me what your opinion is on setting up lynches and what drawbacks you see with setting up multiple FoSes?

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: I should have added that I don't find lighthearted joking scummy at all, so that isn't what's giving me a problem. Though, perhaps, the joking is helping you to maintain a middle-ground. Doesn't look like you want to make a stand; this is bolstered by the fact that you've given FoSes in pairs. Do you think this is a fair criticism?

[Pulindar]

Either way, would you like to ask me some questions? I'll be glad to answer them to clear up or enable you to get a better read on me.

QFT

There are as many different playstyles as there are stars in the sky, my child. I have never had anyone accuse my general play style of being obnoxious or bothersome or scummy. There are other players whose playstyle is called one or all of those things. Some of those players are quite good at Mafia, so my advice is generally to go with what you think works - that's probably the best plot.

QFT as well
Though I have had mine called scummy for being too friendly I just like talking to people
__________________________________________________________
First off: Hi HipHop. Nice to meet you. Glad you have more experience, you can add a good hand in here and I don't need to worry about preforming poorly. Though I was banking on Nacho to do that as well. Nacho's an awesome player, like I said before. Though he lurks a good chunk when scum. much better as town.

Anyways Pulindar I don't like this, you clearly finger someone (actually two people, yet put a vote in a a placeholder? Maybe you should look at this where people argue that the rvs is not a stage, but more of trasition to get the game going. So placing a random vote after the game has more than enough info to place a fos is scummy. Just because some people haven't posted yet does not mean you cannot use the info already here. In my first game people attacked me for voting someone that hadn't posted yet. They said I should be concentrating on the info at hand because there is plenty to go on.

I get that, I really do, but I didn't want to place a vote on either one of them. I felt that my pressure on them would have been ill placed at that exact moment, but I did want to let them know I'd be watching them. Voting would have favored one over the other, I didn't want that. Also, I disagree and feel that RV can be used at any given time. It usually helps to have a reason to do it, but it can be used. I've made alot of cases on this in previous games.

You also state that you will be silent even though, you had the means to post. Almost like you want to hear others opinons and base yours somewhat after theirs. For that it at least deserves a fos Other than that, your play has been superb.

That is a VERY good point. I wanted to be silent for two reasons, I wanted to see what certain people would say without having me there messing with their words, and I didn't want the game to get too long before everyone joined in.

What I don't understand is how more people don't find die scummy. I mean his first vote clearly shows diversion. It also shows he doesn't want to get invovled. And his second post he uses the Omgus in a way, except says you put me at L-3, instead of you voted for me. Than for the next four posts he fluffs. Until Pulindatr asks him some questions. I believe bws help the town immensely. i tell you, you really should look at this game. I was scum in this game, and a bw was formed to bait the scum out. I was hit, line and sinker, as in lynched on the first day(only time ever lynched on the first day.) From than on I view bws in a different way. As for why didn't the mafia hammer, that is whole bunch of wifom. It is the idea of mafia to survive. Not reveal themselves in the first lynch.

Thus the reason I put both Die and [no] under suspicion.

Also I doubt if I was around Die would have been lynched. I would have put my vote on before he hit L-2. I doubt anyone else here would have put someone at L-1 besides [no] 2 pages in this game. Therefore he would not have been lynched.

yeah, probably true. I wouldn't have, that's for sure.

@Pulindar - you had previously expressed the belief that [no] was scum distancing/bussing his partner Die. How do you feel about this theory at this point?

I no longer agree with myself on this particular point. I think that they could not have pulled it off that way based on their later responses.

@ AV: I'd just like to say Silver's most recent post struck me as very townie. but I like your questions, keep it up.

Will do another post a bit later adding some more... I have a bit more difficult time forming attacks than I do forming defenses.

[silverbullet999]

I think your FoSes and setting up of lynches (through your "If x, then y" statements) is a little scummy. It's what is putting a thorn in my side with you. Can you tell me what your opinion is on setting up lynches and what drawbacks you see with setting up multiple FoSes?

Well right now I am playing this as some people play a game of chess... predicting all the moves and how to react with it. (I unfortunately do not play chess at all like that... ). I'm deciding against posting more of these if x then y statements because it could be an easy way for the scum to manipulate me if they wish.

Now I am going to assume that for your question about multiple lynches and FoSes (fingers of suspicion right?) is in correlation with my if statements. Setting them up in this way has a few drawbacks. As stated before if I reveal them they could be manipulated... they may also not stick depending on the circumstances and I could be later criticized for that.

Hope I interpreted your question correctly. If I didn't, could you rephrase them so that I better understand it?

[silverbullet999]

Though, perhaps, the joking is helping you to maintain a middle-ground. Doesn't look like you want to make a stand; this is bolstered by the fact that you've given FoSes in pairs. Do you think this is a fair criticism?

The joking helps me to feel involved while not much is going on. I am not looking to make a stand (I'm thinking you mean like Thor has been.) as I am not sure how to approach asking people questions and I feel that Thor has been doing a good job with that. I don't really recall giving many FoSes except for towards no and die which I have had for awhile (and was slightly toward hiphop since he hadn't been active much). The exception being when I misread the posts regarding the votes on die when he was almost lynched. The criticism is fine and quite true (if i interpreted it correctly).

[Jerako]

umm ok :dunno: . That's your perogative to determine exactly how many reasons i should have, i guess

Nice try at twisting my words, but no. My point is that YOU were suggesting there were more reasons. I don't care how many you have, so long as you're not

pretending to have more

.

ok, just because it made sense to me for a moment doesn't mean it was a good reason upon further investigation.

What further investigation, exactly? You said you don't bandwagon without a reason in the very same post you negate your own reason for joining the bandwagon...

and then you continue to ride the bandwagon.

I had the reason before i gave the reason. So it shouldn't be all that surprising (if you believe I had the reason in my head before i stated it) that i retracted the explanation the same post i made it.

Nope, that's totally fine. What I

do

find surprising, like I just stated above, is that you continue to ride the bandwagon, after you "retracted your explanation" immediately after saying you have good reasons for being on it in the first place.

It's definitely something to consider, but saying "it's not a very good reason" isn't the same as saying "it' isn't enough to make a decision"

Lolwut? You're now contradicting yourself here. In the quotebox just below where you made this statement, even.

The second one I think could be a FOS is because it's an obvious superfluous accusation [IMO]. But I don't think that's enough to make a decision.

It's definitely something to consider, but saying "it's not a very good reason" isn't the same as saying "it' isn't enough to make a decision"

These are now both in reference to the exact same post. You have now made it into an even bigger contradiction than it was originally. Again, the problem I had with your posts at first is how you say "I have good reasons for bandwagonning" and both times you give reasons you say they're "not good reasons".

DPs FoS was my second reason. what are you talking about?

I'm not questioning that it was your reason. Which was the "superfluous accusation" in the first place? Your reasoning, or DP's FoS? Not sure this is even relevant anymore, since you've now contradicted the line following it, but your wording in that sentence is confusing, and I'd like to know.

Now this is interesting. Where did I state that I didn't know it took 5 votes to lynch, and that when that number was reached, the lynch was cast?

Lolwut? Again. This has been your primary argument about why you made the vote in the first place. You were comparing this to another game, and you said you thought that the rules functioned the same way here at first:

but i just played one game there. and i did terribly. also, the rules of those games doesn't allow an automatic lynch once a majority has been reached, you have to wait until 5PM EST (the night phase) to wait for the lynch. until then, it doesn't matter how many votes they have on you.

so basically what im saying - if this even helps at all - is that the issue of quicklynching someone therefore didn't even register in my head.

So now you've been caught in a second contradiction. It either did, or it did not "register in your head" that you were quickly pushing DP to a lynch. Not both. If you realized that the lynch will happen on the fifth vote, then you realized that you were pushing DP extremely close to making that happen. Ergo, you were trying to get him lynched as fast as possible, especially considering my points above, where you yourself stated (not in so many words), that you had no other reason to stay on the bandwagon. You knew

exactly

what you were doing, and I think the "issue of quicklynching" that you became aware of, is that it's obvious that you're scum by doing so.

[AurorusVox]

Unvote

I'm satisfied with silverbullet999's responses to my vote and question


In other news, Jerako is building a very good case against [no], but I'm finding it hard to distinguish between a newbie scum contradicting himself, and a newbie townie contradicting himself.

This is partly complicated by my prior experience with the game, where the two most suspicious players (in a cruel twist of fate, one actually replaced the other) had simply been newbies making horrendous mistakes, whilst the (newbie) mafia had

not

been overtly suspicious...

Preacher, what's your read on [no] at the moment? If I were to vote [no] now and put him at L-1, would you still keep your vote on him? What do you make of Jerako and his case?

[no], likewise, what's your read on the Preacher? Is there a particular reason that you haven't voted for him? Who do you think Nachomamma is going to vote for?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Please note the following rules change (changes highlighted in red):

changed to this:

At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch. In the case of a tie,

the person who reached the tying number of votes first will be lynched

. If ½ the original number of votes is not met, a No Lynch will occur.

There will be no reduced number of votes in LyLo.

from this:

At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch. In the case of a tie,

the person who first received the required number of votes will be lynched

. If this number is not met, a No Lynch will occur.

There will be no reduced number of votes in LyLo.

[Pulindar]

@ VRK, Thanks for informing us about the rule change

AV, I'm noticing Jerako's case on [no] as well.

I'll post more later, I'm a bit drained as of this moment. sorry guys.

[Thor665]

In other news, Jerako is building a very good case against [no], but I'm finding it hard to distinguish between a newbie scum contradicting himself, and a newbie townie contradicting himself.

That's always the tough part. My very first game (where Nacho's neck was stretched a touch) involved a player known as maluski who basically opened the day with the comment "hey guys, if I do anything scummy then please tell me so I can stop doing it."

Vanilla Townie. (though we actually didn't lynch him till Day 3)

So, yeah, sometimes the blatantly obvious guy is town (and sometimes he's just blatant obvious scum)

I like aspects of Jerako's case (specifically I like the "second" contradiction) I think that's the most scummy thing we have on [no] right now.

@silverbullet - what is your feeling about how thus far all the scumhunting has been focused on the 'newbie' players and not on the 'experienced' players?