Newbie 970 - Quietville - Game over

[Rain]

vote: mrdean

[Rain]

Thank you, Xite, for that criticism.

The reason why I voted for mrdean was because I ran through a random number generator, 7 being the result. The unfortunate soul to occupy the 7th position down the list was mrdean. The reason why I omitted to say that was because I thought it was... well, I thought it was superfluous. Whether the reason is "because I ran a random number generator, it told me mrdean was a good target", or Vayre's "eenie meenie miney moe", or simply "because I said so", it doesn't seem to matter.

I realize that posting a reason would help advance the game, and in the future, I will do so.

I must disagree with the similarity between my first post and the example portrayed.

7 people left in a game
2 are scum
2 people vote person A with good reasons posted and discussed
Person B decides, okay vote! and gives no explination
Next day, ESPECIALLY if person A was town, person B gets criticized because a hammer without explanation is usually an EXTREME scumtell
Now, remember scum gets 1 nk per night
so youre down to 3 town 2 scum, what we call lylo, or lynch or lose
if person B is town, too bad because typically everyone will jump on person B
person B gets lynched
scum win

Person B and I have probably wrote the same exact post, but the conditions were different. In this example, it looks as if B's post jumps in a bandwagon against A, and indeed looks scummy. However, mine was clearly in the RVS. My reasoning was that voting without reason or with an absurd reason (because my gods have willed it) is practically the same. Also, judging a game by numbers alone is misleading. We have no clue to the interactions between persons A and B. While the game you linked may be relevant to the point you're making, one element can not represent the whole.

Also, I'm fairly new to mafia. I've played a variant of it irl (I believe the term here is in meatspace?), never before in a forum.

Thanks again, Xite, for your... warning.

[Rain]

To be fair, Orphen, Xite's two posts (posted Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:11 pm and Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:12 pm) seem to acknowledge that I understood my mistake, then moved on to something else. Which leads me to believe you've rekindle his overreaction and blown it out of proportion.

Since you obviously want to talk about this, then let's talk. Judging by your posts, just about everything you accused Xite of doing (diverting on a tangent, overreacting) isn't exclusive to him. In just two posts, you've covered a new feature in this forum, discussed what seems to be just a neat typography, and dragged on about RVS. In Xite's defense, he was discussing RVS because of my mistake and other people's curiosity. You, on the other hand, could have let this topic dropped. Instead, you decided to write a long post riddled with questions, which does a great job at increasing your post's word count while hiding your own intentions and beliefs.

While I do feel that talking about yourself is a good way to get things going, it should be considered unwise to mention that your first and only game on this site was a miserable failure. I sincerely believe past performances does not automatically reflect on future expectations (your style of play may differ, some might even say you've improved), however, on occasions, they do... rhyme.

Also, asking if someone feels in danger? Hell, I felt in danger when Xite warned me; though I was confident no reason for voting wasn't a big deal, the danger of Xite forming a bandwagon against me wasn't non-existent. In his stead, I would feel in danger too, under pressure of at least 3 people's attention. In addition, I'm sure you remember that out of 9 of us here, 2 can kill at night. Are you suggesting you feel safe from these night kills?

The following is just a side note, admittedly a tangent to this discussion but not totally off topic. Also, it relieves a bit of tension set on Orphen. Did anyone notice the irony of me not posting a reason? I understand that any reason whatsoever may be a good reason in RVS, just to get the ball rolling. But my lack of one actually sparked a more interesting conversation. Imagine if I had added "because I saw his name in the clouds" as a reason...

[Rain]

@Lateralus

Half and half. It was random between the people I had any reason to vote for, which as Xite said was him and Orphen. As Mirhawk said there's not really much else to go on right now as far as reasons for voting go, if any better reasons come up, which would be pretty much anything, i'll change my vote to reflect that.

Please do give credit where credit is due. I believe it was Vayre's words, page 2 (Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:22 am).

By the way, do you mind answering some of your own questions? I would like to know your thoughts about both Xite's and Orphen's behavior.

@Computing

In that case I'm afraid it's got to be you for getting the Powerpuff Girls theme in my head

Would the corollary be that you would retract your vote if Xite changes his avatar? How about if I had an avatar portraying SpongeBob SquarePants, would I gain your trust instead?

@Vayre
That's not fair. Why exclude other people from being your target? Anyone could have a number of illusionary scumtells: Nachmamma could be lurking (is that the correct term?), Mirhawk never voted despite knowing full well we are in RVS, Computing has no taste in TV shows (do you really know their theme song by heart? o_O), Mrdean voted and never posted again, Lateralus pitted Orphen and Xite against each other with well crafted questions. I'm omitting Xite and Orphen because I am under the impression those two were already in the pool of your potential targets.

Notice that I also omitted myself because, hey, that would be just plain irresponsible. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't base your judgment on who's not popular at the moment but rather on what people say, how they react, and on the flame posts that I'm bound to receive after this post.

@Xite
You've voted for me, gave me a warning, and crowned me your favorite newbie. As flattered as I am, don't you think it's a bit contradictory? I understand that your random vote was Vayre, so your vote for me being random is unlikely. I think we've discussed the no-reason thing for RVS at length, so I doubt that's the main reason (or is it still?). I notice you've cast a Finger of Suspicion on Orphen for 5-6 reasons. Is there anything that makes me more scummy than him at the moment?

[Rain]

@Lateralus
The following is what I consider to be the correction. Changes are highlighted between parentheses.

Half and half. It was random between the people I had any reason to vote for, which as Xite said was him and Orphen. As Mirhawk said there's not really much else to go on right now as far as reasons for voting go, if any better reasons come up, which would be pretty much anything, i'll change my vote to reflect that.

I know it's no big deal, but gallons of red ink have told me to reference citations properly. The same is true for Xite's above post, I think the quote should read as follows:

If he's town then I still believe he is overreacted and should focus more on the game at hand. He doesn't need to post long paragraphs, a simple answer would help the game move along smoother. While he's tried to help the town understand good game mechanics he should be more focused on scum hunting.

instead of:

If he's town then I still believe he is overreacted and should focus more on the game at hand. He doesn't need to post long paragraphs, a simple answer would help the game move along smoother. While he's tried to help the town understand good game mechanics he should be more focused on scum hunting.

Again, I recognize it's not game breaking. Perhaps I'm just afflicted with a

little

OCD.

[Rain]

It seems I have Computing to thank for no one voting for me

[Rain]

@Computing
To remove any ambiguity, I think Wolf would just consider Xite's latest vote to be an unvote.

@Mirhawk
I would venture a guess and say most people change their underpants frequently during the year, probably 90% of the time, maybe even more. By your line of reasoning, should we throw away all underpants and do without?

That was rhetorical. Please do not answer, especially if you're a guy.

In all seriousness though, RVS, as stated here, in the wiki, and elsewhere, provide us with a starting point. Subsequent posts then reveal the author's character and everybody gets to play detective. Not voting withholds information, not because that voting was particularly useful, but because you stump any discussion that may arise. So please be a dear and vote for someone. It can be anyone, for any reason. Do keep in mind though that while "being an ass" is a totally valid reason for voting, it might be considered weak.

@everyone
This relates to some people publicly judging me as pro-town: I am grateful, truly I am. Do keep in mind though that just because somebody trusts me, it does not mean I trust that somebody. Nothing personal, it's just to prevent a buddy scheme.

---

Totally off topic here, I checked out Orphen's first game, Newbie 909. An entertaining read, great character from Ren. Also, you get a peek at Orphen's behavior. However, I don't know if meta-gaming is encouraged or frowned upon, so do so at your peril.

[Rain]

Ah, I'm sorry. I should've added this quote:

I didn't really see a reason to be throwing random votes around at the beginning of the game. 90% of the time those votes get changed anyways.

[Rain]

@Orphen

Lateralus pitted Orphen and Xite against each other with well crafted questions.

This was in reference to:

@Orphen

What has Xite sidetracked this game from? Do you believe there anything important he could have brought up into the game instead of explaining what he did?

While Xite's overreaction unnecessary in his defense he did have to explain the same things about 4 times before your vote. No while explaining something for the 5th time will piss anyone off, is that what you were going for? Did you think Xite was an easy target to bait so you could use his overreaction as a reason to to lead a bandwagon against him?

@Xite

Do you believe your reaction was appropriate? Was it even required to explain the whole situation over again when you could have simply said you were explaining an important part of the game to rain? What was the main cause for your reaction, was Orphen's accusation, or was it his vote?

Now, about this:

@everyone
This relates to some people publicly judging me as pro-town: I am grateful, truly I am. Do keep in mind though that just because somebody trusts me, it does not mean I trust that somebody. Nothing personal, it's just to prevent a buddy scheme.

---

Totally off topic here, I checked out Orphen's first game, Newbie 909. An entertaining read, great character from Ren. Also, you get a peek at Orphen's behavior. However, I don't know if meta-gaming is encouraged or frowned upon, so do so at your peril.

The first paragraph is self explanatory, had you gone through the link. The link can also be found here, in case you've missed it again.

For redundancy, and because I have a feeling you never go through links (precedence was set with the above and with the incident concerning Xite's alphasitedown link), the "buddying up" phenomenon occurs when one tries to be friendly with another. For sake of clarity, I'm going to introduce names: Snow and Hail. They don't know each other, have never met, but Hail showers Snow with flattery and the like (ZOMG LEIK U S0 KEWL, U MUTS B TOWNN!!1). However, the circumstances have forced the town to lynch Hail, who turns out to be a mafia goon (OH NOES! 1 WAS S000 C1OSE!). If Hail was the first scum to be caught (in a town where more than one is known to be found), people would naturally assume Snow to be scum as well, when no or perhaps few rational reason exists. You can also call this guilt by association, but that may be stretching it a little bit.

As for my second paragraph, I would argue that it is also self explanatory. Everything I need to say was up there: it genuinely was a good read, and the character Ren played kept me smiling all along. Also, you said that you failed miserably, which piqued my interest. I do concur that meta-gaming is useless at this point.

But enough about me. Let's talk about you.

You've answered most of the questions directed at you with "no", which is fine.

Yes and no. Posting nothing rather then something useless is better. Or he could of posted useful things. If you get what i mean.

No, it was not what i was going for.

No, in no way did i try to get a bandwagon on him, nor would i think anyone would try to get a bandwagon started thru scum-hunting on the second page.

No, in no way did i, lets say question you, because you are an easy target, or an easy bandwagon. I don't know how you get this impression that i am doing such, and think you are just trying to blow out what i said in order to make what i said seem more "lethal."

So we know what you're not trying to do. Mind telling us now what you

are

trying to do?

Also, this quote is Orphen@Computing

RVS was over a looooonnnggg time ago mate. There was no need to make an RVS vote when you did because someone else highlighted your original vote. Then again, your townie to me for this exact reason. (or newb scum)

... So... you're saying... Computing can either be townie... or a newb scum...

Should I infer you ruled out Computing being a pro-scum, in a Newbie's game?

Also, I would really like to know your thoughts about one of my post (Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:44 am). I believe some of the points made then are still valid. I did not quote it here because it would lengthen this post for no good reason.

Until then though,

Hand of Suspicion: Orphen

. Screw poking, I'm going in for a full-on slap

@Mod

When you find a replacement for mrdean, is my vote going to turn into an unvote or would it point to his replacement? Had I the choice, I would prefer the latter, just to get him talking asap. Thank you.

[Rain]

@Computing
The following may or may not indicate scumminess, but it is thick with twisted logic.

[...] was it supposed to make you seem innocent by actively drawing a vote towards yourself [..]

Please tell me if I am misquoting. Otherwise, seriously?

How

would actively drawing a vote towards yourself make you seem even marginally more innocent?

The quote is Computing@[O]phen:

So because I said I would in the presence of a SpongeBob avatar and becuase I'd like to to see what you'll do under pressure

I think we all know the SpongeBob thing was ridiculous, including yourself. What seems weird to me is that you still acted on that reason, that you'd vote for whoever holds a SpongeBob avatar. It's as if you're saying, "I know this is stupid, but I'll do it anyway".

You then justify this with another reason, to see what he'll do under pressure. Don't you think he's already under pressure though? He's already subject of Vayre's and Lateralus' vote. He's under both Xite's and my suspicion. If we disregard what you say and look solely at your actions, you've put Orphen at L-2. This alone intrigues me, since Nachomamma and mrdean/RSimplicity have yet to vote seriously (i.e. not from RVS).

The vote is a joke the question is not, I'm not going to try to get someone lynched because of their avatar

Voting is no joke. If NachoM and RSimplicity happens to vote for Orphen, that's it: everyone voting for Orphen would have their own reason, yours being "because I don't like SpongeBob". Other options are available: either a Finger of Suspicion (FoS) or a Hand of Suspicion (HoS).

@Lateralus22

I don't think being neutral is bad

I would argue the opposite. Voicing your opinion is a great way to let others know your stance. You give more material for the Town as a whole to work with, it makes scum-hunting so much easier, but above all else, it makes you look strong, it indicates transparency, it shows you have little to hide, and it projects a pro-town image. I believe this is the reason why some people, including myself, have some uneasy feeling about your behavior.

[Rain]

UNVOTE

As I have no more reason to keep it on RSimplicity. What's holding me back from voting for somebody instead of nobody is the low number of posts someone people still have. I'd rather wait and see before making a rash judgment.

If I was forced to though, my vote would probably go to either Orphen or Lateralus. The former has poorly constructed arguments and defense. The latter... has nothing incriminating that I can find. It's just a gut feeling; he strikes me as cold.

As for Mirhawk, I find little of this compelling.

Don't be a hypocrite Xcite, on the first post of the game you voted for someone with the reasoning "Because I said so."

Mirhawk started the fluff that lasted 2 pages. and fed it at his own will. Then bases claims from the fluff that I don't agree are scumtells.

It's hard to believe he sparked the Xite-Orphen overreactions. He'd have to anticipate Xite's pride, then hope someone else would continue on his stubborn attempts to refute Xite.

However, I agree that Mirhawk's unwarranted vote for Lateralus looks odd.

[Rain]

@Mirhawk
Ah, my apologies. I read your posts in isolation, and did not notice it was right after my request. Also, your quote:

@Computing
In all seriousness though, RVS, as stated here, in the wiki, and elsewhere, provide us with a starting point. Subsequent posts then reveal the author's character and everybody gets to play detective. Not voting withholds information, not because that voting was particularly useful, but because you stump any discussion that may arise. So please be a dear and vote for someone. It can be anyone, for any reason. Do keep in mind though that while "being an ass" is a totally valid reason for voting, it might be considered weak.

lead me to believe I was talking to Computing, which added to the confusion. I retract my statement about your vote being odd.

@Nacho
Can you please elaborate a little bit? I understand that Lateralus voiced suspicion on Mirhawk, Xite then voted for Mirhawk, and it looks as if RSimplicity is starting a bandwagon against Mirhawk with his own vote. Is there more to it? Your thought process might persuade me or others to join in.

[Rain]

EBWOP

[...] might persuade me or others to join in against RSimplicity.

[Rain]

@Xite
Actually, Orphen was never that active, with only 4 posts in 6 pages. Besides, he's still in school (in year 10, though Australia does not have the same start/end of academic school year as North America so I dunno if his winter vacations have started) and has to juggle what seems like a complicated family life. Give him a break ... or a prod, in due time.

[Rain]

@Nachomama
Why no wallposts? It might look intimidating at first, but that's usually where people summarize their arguments and develop elaborate analysis. With enough information, we can see if RSimplicity has scumtell behavior while arguing a case against Mirhawk, or if RSimplicity just doesn't have a good rationale.

[Rain]

@Orphen
If you truly understand what about buddying up, I highly doubt you'd ask that question. I have no control over other people's actions; if people want to say I'm town to be friendly with me, so be it. Providing the link to the wiki article is a way of making sure that, if they're from the mafia, I am aware of what they're trying to pull, and will keep my guard up. If it happens that they're pro-town, then they will be acquainted with that concept in the future, no harm done.

Failing to notice this is extremely scummy, in my opinion. No one else needed me to explain this thrice. In conjunction with Xite's incident, it's as if you're asking questions just so that people have to repeat themselves in hopes that they might slip up, selectively reading passages that support you (or blatant mis-reading, since you admitted doing), then making a big deal out of something that could have been resolved had you hit the Preview button before Submit. When done in quick succession however, the benefits are lost.

Also, most of your questions are either poorly concealed threats, are answered previously, or are evidence of lack of post-processing. Contrary to popular belief, and to what they teach you in school, there are such things as stupid questions.

While I do have suspicions on other people, you clearly stand out. For this reason,

Vote: [O]rphen

On a friendlier note, nah I'm not stalking you; I live about 14 time zones away, on the other hemisphere, as indicated beneath my avatar. I just read your first game, got some info there, and inferred the rest. *That* is post-processing.

[Rain]

First of all, I inform other people of this because this happened to me once, because it could happen again here, and because when I have some information that could help the town as a whole, I share said information.

Second, if only one person publicly voiced that he/she thinks I'm pro-town, I don't say. However, I count three people that have done just that (on Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:50 pm, Mirhawk thought I was the least suspicious. This may have changed since then. However, at the time of my first post concerning the buddy scheme, this was held to be true; thus, will be counted as a pro-town read). Had I not posted that beforehand and use it instead in a case against one of the persons above, a third party may remark that two other people have done the same. At that time, an accusation of buddying up would be moot since I can't single out one person for doing something two other people have also done.

Also, for a real buddy scheme to occur, the person would have to be hung and flip scum. Therefore, I could not have "[ruined] all chances of catching a mafia through this method" because he would be already caught.

Last, your latest questions about this issues:

WHY do you inform people of what it is, and that you are looking out for such people. if you ARE looking out for people trying to buddy up with you, WHY do you go out in the thread and tell everyone of what you are doing, ruining all chances of catching a mafia through this method.

bear no resemblances, nor could be inferred from your initial question:

Any particular reason why you added the first paragraph? We're not here to make friends. (which i'm guessing is the reason behind it (like, you posted that so that people wouldnt get upset if you turned on them all of a sudden))

so it's not as if I "misinterpreted" or that I'm just "not getting it", it's just that, in reality, I'm answering a slew of different questions. I now suggest you argue against why you're constantly changing questions, because it looks as if you're backpedaling.

[Rain]

@Mod

I believe Xite also voted for Orphen, from his last post (on Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:13 pm)

[Rain]

Also, Reverse Simplicity decided to unvote (since Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:04 pm)

[Rain]

@Xite91

Out of game Side note: By the way, thanks for being the only one who calls me a she in this game lol

This is not true. The first occurrence of anyone mentioning your female gender is Mirhawk, on page 3:

At this point I'm not as suspicious of Xite as I was before anyway. I don't think she defended herself very well, but if I were mafia and in her shoes I would had tried to deflect that conversation off me and onto someone else sooner than she did.

This quote has multiple usage of "she" and "her", so it's unlikely that they are typos. No angry faces I just like to point out fallacies, even if they concern out-of-topic stuff.

[Rain]

@Vayre
Your vote on Reverse Simplicity looks strange. The sole reason why you voted for him relies on two short sentences. Also, in 6 posts, you have not contributed much, which may seem like active lurking. Care to share some thoughts, especially since RSimplicity tried to defend himself?

@Mod

Are Vayre and Computing due for a prod now? It's been about a week.

[Rain]

@Vayre
You don't need to be any of those things to play mafia =) Just post your thoughts and we'll work with that. If inspiration doesn't come easily, you can try listing people and breaking it down to who looks suspicious and who doesn't, with a short explanation why. If that doesn't help, then you can try townhunting instead; of the 9 players, who looks most pro-town, then work your way down until you have 2 least probable townies.

[Rain]

@Xite
It's dangerous to say that you can "guarantee" someone to be town. You might be persuaded by what I say, but only mafia scums *truly* know who's pro-town from the beginning.

@Computing
1. Yes, mafia can only talk to each other during the night. The mod, or our IC, would have to tell us whether they can talk during the confirmation stage though (Night 0).
2. What usually happens is that a quicktopic thread is opened, where mafia can freely talk to each other. The link is initially provided by the Mod to the mafia players so that he/she can monitor the thread as well. If mafia is replaced, the link is shared to the replacement so that the history of the conversation can be shared. Sometimes, the quicktopic link is provided after the game, for everyone to view.
3. Somehow, I feel that answering this question is tantamount to suicide.

These questions aside, onwards to discussing players.

Regarding the stuff I said I'd post on Orphen's reaction the variations between what I thought he might say are really just how annoyed he would be, it seems his angry demeanor is limited to being misunderstood and his votes are also limited to when he is misunderstood as well (all two of them).

True as that may be, it is also true that he

chose

to adopt an angry demeanor. Instead of respectfully correcting me if corrections were due, or ask courteous questions, his posts are riddled with passive aggressiveness. Quoting passages to support this claim would extend this wallpost for little reason, so I ask readers to look at his posts in isolation. If I missed some parts where Orphen was civil, please let me know and I'll retract this accusation.

While this alone may not be a strong indication of scuminess (I admit, I do sound cocky at times), coupled with the reasons I've posted beforehand makes Orphen to be the leading person likely to be scum, in my opinion.

The second person in the lead would... probably be the late Lateralus. Mostly gut feeling, and some moot arguments. S.Assassin doesn't post enough to make me change my mind. It's a shame that replacements don't need to defend their predecessor's stance.

I see some people have cast suspicions on Mirhawk. The points against him look rather moot, and Mirhawk seem to defend himself pretty well (i.e. reasonable and plausible explanations). That being said, I wouldn't trust him with my life. Just saying that if people want to lynch him, a stronger case should be presented.

As for others... I don't know. I'd need more posts from them to get a sharper read, for now it's mostly fuzzy and wild guesses. (Truth be told, it's getting late, I'm sleepy, I need to work early in the mourning, maybe later?)

@Orphen
With your permission, I declare our wallpost battle to be over. I see little use of prolonging what looks like a huge misunderstanding. I have presented my case on posts dated Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:41 pm and Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:46 pm. Most of your attempts to refute my arguments are either "no, you are wrong, you misunderstood me", or "you called me ***? Well, you're ***!". I do not consider this to be a defense; you are merely avoiding my accusations. Now, I'm not saying either of us is right (you might have some good points. May I suggest you work on your presentation?), I'm just saying that I'm willing to drop this for the benefit of the town, so that we don't clog other people's discussion. If someone else wants clarification, I will not hesitate to provide it.

Now, I understand that you'd want some way to redeem yourself (in other words, you might want to convince me to retract my vote). I see two possible solutions; either present a case against someone that might seem scummier than you, or posting a sensible defense that uses clear logic. Other solutions may exist, I just can't think of others right now.

[Rain]

@Xite

Also, any other response is for rain to make and well, he's so against the attempt for anyone to "buddy up" with him I figured he could handle it on his own.

What I'm against and what I find suspicious is when a person compliments another, when a person tries to be friendly in an attempt to win over... a diluted sense of affection. So when a flawed argument is being made against someone, I don't mind a third party intervening and point out the argument's imperfections (in much the same way as my second post might look as if I'm defending you when my intent was to defeat Orphen's attack).

@Mirhawk
It seems that Sleepless Assassin's suspicion against you is a mixture of his intuition and a belief that a scum pair between you and Xite is likely.

[Rain]

@Orphen
I'm speechless, Orphen. Mirhawk said multiple times he finds Xite scummy. He even posted his suspicions. How can you possibly ask for more details than this?

[Rain]

I definitely see the need to lynch somebody today, since a small probability of lynching scum is better than a 0 probability. How do we narrow down the suspects though? From the last vote count, Orphen and Xite are leading at 2 each, with Reverse and Sleepless right behind at 1 each.

My suggestion is to limit our votes to these four individuals. This might sound scummy, but please remember, as Mirhawk pointed out, there are only 4 meatspace days left until deadline. Desperate times call for desperate measure. If no-lynch were to pass, we're essentially giving away a free kill to the mafia scums.

[Rain]

I'd be in favor of a Reverse Simplicity lynch, out of the lurkers here. Voting with a flimsy reason does indeed sound a bit suspicious.

Vote: Reverse Simplicity

This has no impact on my views on Orphen though. I'd keep my vote on him because I still think he's scum, but I don't see a lynch on him happening today.

To the people who voted for Vayre simply because he's lurking, please remember that Nachomama admitted that it might have looked as if he was lurking as well (solely by counting the number of posts). Also note that his activity sharply increased right after he suggested "lynch a lurker today". That is to say his behavior changed when the current subject of our discussion can be related to him.

[Rain]

Unless people are going to commit, I have a feeling Day1 will go down without a lynch... I may be wrong, but I think Reverse Simplicity is leading at 3 votes.

[Rain]

I'm curious... In most games, it is customary for a person at L-1 to claim. Let's say Reverse Simplicity claims to be VT right before hammer. Would you (talking to everyone here) unvote? How about if he claims a PR?

Personally, if he claims VT, I'd keep my vote on him. Under different circumstances, perhaps I'd retract my vote. If he claims a PR, I'll definitely unvote; he'll be toast tonight anyways. Otherwise, he'd have a lot of explaining to do.

[Rain]

... um... Is this inactivity normal, or should we send our mod a PM?

[Rain]

(I'm going to talk as though Mastermind has never replaced Vayre, since it makes no practical difference. We do appreciate your help though, Mastermind)

Vayre's death leaves me puzzled. On the surface, it looks as if the mafia scums rid our town of a lurker, promoting discussion by cutting off dead weight. A quick re-read of the thread indicates that a few people found him slightly pro-town, others found him slightly pro-scum but for the same reason; he hasn't posted anything worthwhile in 6 posts, as Nacho pointed out.

In fact, in Nacho's 221 post indicates that Vayre would be a likely candidate for a D2 lynch. It looks as if by killing Vayre on the first night, the scums are denying themselves an easy mis-lynch for today.

A little WIFOM voice tells me that this town's mafia think a PR would lurk to survive N1, trying to pull off a night action. Or perhaps they think Vayre was a "safe" kill, that his death would not impact the dynamics of our relations very much. (I'm using 'relations' here to refer to the net of who votes for whom, who thinks whom is pro-town, etc.) Of course, Computing voted for Vayre but Computing was under pressure since deadline was fast approaching.

Now, all this is void if mafia were just randomly killing. This would actually be beneficial to us because we can find someone who has similar behavior; someone who acts brash, who has little attention to details, and/or who admits not reading the thread much. Personal bias directs my suspicions to Orphen, but this is only valid if the mafia scums are randomly shooting people at night.

[Rain]

Sleepless' hammer was hours before the deadline. Personally, any reason, short of a scum claim, would be sufficient. "cuz all the cool kids are doing it" may sound scummy, but it could also be interpreted as sarcasm, a literary device he frequently uses. You could almost call this his unique style of play. Xite, you may have to learn that, and love that, hun.

[Rain]

My head is blown. I tried mounting a case against someone, but I had contradictory evidence.

Upon rereading though, I noticed that Nacho thinks Orphen is town based on meta-gaming. Xite, where is this bitch-slappingness?

Also, I politely decline your proposal. I will however consider you as a backup

[Rain]

@Xite
Post 74 gave me the impression that you'd bitch slap anyone who tries to use meta in newbie games.

To my scrapped case, it was against Nacho. His Lynch-a-Lurker suggestion seemed like a fine idea, but of the 4 lurkers, two of them were confirmed townies. This leaves Nacho and Orphen; the former says he's town, and Nacho considers the latter to be slightly town. I can draw two mutually exclusive conclusions: either "both scums are active, contributing players" is true, which means that Nacho was mistaken when he doubted this (our IC? wrong? zomg! no waii), or "both scums are active, contributing players" is false, Nacho and/or Orphen could still be scum.

In both situation, I thought Nacho deserves some scrutiny. However, I couldn't find anything incriminating, as some of my arguments were just me misreading his statements. I'd like to point out that while his posts doesn't seem scummy, it also doesn't give out a pro-town vibe like some other players. I tried to meta this, but it turned out inconclusive (a fancier way of saying I fell asleep more than once while reading past games).

All in all, I am wary of Nachomama8.

Aside from him, I grow tired of anorexic posts with the promise that more content will come. A short esquisse is appreciated.

[Rain]

Vote: Computing

I don't think he's significantly scummier than others, I just want to put pressure on him in hopes that he'll finally posts his thoughts about Day2.

[Rain]

Unvote

That vote did not last long...

My intuition tells me that Orphen and Nacho are the two scums of this village. I don't have a crushing case against either of them, I just townhunted and along with one or two, they don't strike me as pro-town. I suspect Orphen because of his change in behavior when we criticized him for his aggressiveness. I suspect Nacho for much of Computing's reasoning. I find it unsettling that he hasn't posted in a while (around 72 hours from the time of this writing, I believe), when he demonstrated that he could post 3 times in 3 RL days as evidence in Day2's morning*.

With regards to Sleepless' ignorance that his vote was the hammer, I believe him to the same extent that I believe Nacho did not post in Day1's morning* because he did not recall getting the PM.

*I use the term 'morning' loosely, referring to the first few RL days of each game day.

[Rain]

@Nacho
Would Tuesday be the following Tuesday, the 27th?

[Rain]

Sleepless, I thought you know Xite IRL? Or have you never played Mafia with her?

[Rain]

@Xite
This is not buddying up. This, this, and this is what I consider to be buddying up. Relevant quotations follow.

You good sir are a freaking genius and probably my new favorite noob to this game.

This^ is reason 1 why youre my favorite. [shortened to prevent clogging]

My second reason [shortened to prevent clogging]

Third, you're smart, and you let it known. [shortened to prevent clogging]

Fourth, you like megatokyo. that is a plus

Lol, I love you rain, marry me?

I do not consider buddying up to be synonymous to defending someone, i.e. when Mirhawk seemingly defends Orphen or Computing, when in reality he's pointing flaws in your argument. I do however consider superfluous compliments to be buddying up, especially since they're blatantly used to form a bond of trust through humour.

In addition, the fact that you straight up accused anyone of buddying up is a slight scum tell. Knowing full well I'm against this, it seems you're trying to manipulate me into antagonizing your target.

Something that struck me as odd was also the enthusiasm you showed when following Nacho's Lynch-a-Lurker. It pains me to say that Orphen might have a grain of truth in:

I'm not really liking how everyone has listened to Nach on this and just ignored everyone else in game, bar the 3 he has highlighted. He is steering everyone away from the rest of the group, and possibly his scum partner.

See, the way I see it, since no one called on my own suggestion of limiting the pool of potential scums when Day1's deadline was approaching, it must be at least half decent. However, Xite, you completely ignored me (your favorite newbie, no less), and instead considered Nacho's list of potential scums which, curiously, does not include your name. Mine did.
Also, your vote on Reverse seems oddly out of place. Instead of keeping your vote on Orphen, it seems you've taken Nacho's use of meta seriously (something you consider useless), disregarded your whole case against Orphen, and opted to adopt a "oh well, everyone thinks Reverse Simplicity is a good lynch today" attitude to vote for him. To top it off, you came back in Day2 with guns a-blazin' at Orphen again.

You could have just kept your vote on Orphen. He was leading in the number of votes, and he was, considered by Nacho, a lurker. It would be like a cross between my suggestion and Nacho's, plus you had a whole case on him. But you didn't keep your vote on him.

Furthermore, you've done little to contradict Lateralus' foreboding words:

[She] appears to be trying to obtain a leader like position in order to keep suspicion away or either to lead the town into false lynches.

[Rain]

I spent a bit a bit of time following Xite’s advice: “Reread. Think. Then respond.” And upon rereading the thread, certain things came up that I hadn’t given as much attention to on the spot.

@Xite:
You have been mentioning your so-called “case” against Orphen ever since the start of day 1 (indeed, you’ve mentioned this case at least 10 times in several posts during the last couple of weeks).

First of all, you don’t have a case.

The more I reread your post (#44), the more it seemed like you were guilty of exactly what you were accusing Orphen of doing. You were sidetracking the game, and your numerous (to say the least) posts have been diluting content from the very start of the game. What about the rest of the case, you may ask? Well it’s basically the same points repackaged slightly differently and made to sound even more scummy and diabolical.

You reposted your “case” in post #88, which was essentially a summary of Orphen’s first four posts (the four posts that diluted the entire game, somehow), and also pointed out that Orphen had suspicions against many different people. Voicing suspicious is scummy now? Should he have trusted a handful of people and tried to buddy up to them as you have?

Ironically, I believe the best reason for voting that you have provided us is your “gut feeling”. And who has this gut feeling been aimed at? Strangely enough, only at the people who have posted anything against you during the start of the game, namely Orphen and Mirhawk.
And finally, your recent ISO on Orphen could not have been more pointless.

Since day 2 started, you seem to have kept more to yourself. This may be a good thing, since, looking back at day 1, I’m honestly surprised you haven’t been lynched! The only good reason provided against voting for you, which has been reiterated numerous times by several different people, is how active you were. Now, we all know this is WIFOM and not a reason to keep someone.

Therefore, I would support lynching Xite today:

VOTE: Xite

I believe that’s L-1…and…you’re still my backup fiancée though, right?

[Rain]

@Comp:
I was surprised to see how well computing ranks in everyone’s minds. Upon rereading his posts, I felt that they went slightly too far in shoving that newb image down our throats. He has included some newb questions or actions in every single one of his posts…

Furthermore, Comp is active lurking. Big time. Look at posts #227, #289 and #314. He gets accused or prodded, and, lo and behold, he’s back within the hour! This isn’t necessarily scummy, but it does show that he means to stay off the radar.

Indeed, comp hasn’t provided much: he hasn’t voiced many suspicions on anyone, simply followed what others have said (or worse even, voted jokingly), and the bulk of his posts have been useless questions that have only added to his ever-growing newbie aura.

Finally, I’ve been left puzzled by his interactions with Xite. For example, posts 57 to 60, or better yet posts 184, 189 and 190. Xite finds something slightly off about him. He replies, and in keeping with his newb roots, says something along the lines of “I’m just a newb!”, which is hardly an answer to any suspicion. Xite immediately follows this reply by praising comp and just how much of a townie he is! This just seems off to me.

Xite’s praise of him in the previous ISO (for joke voting, of all things), while again misunderstanding his post #57 (showing that she just unvoted him in post 60 without understand why), only pushes my suspicions further.

Of course, this assumes Xite is scum, and that she isn’t simply buddying up to him as she has done with so many others (me included).

FoS: Comp

@Nacho:
Your posts (or lack thereof) during all of day 1, lack of content in day 2, lurking and V/LA until close to the deadline, and your suggestion for lynching a lurker (which may not have been a bad one, but there’s something fishy…) simply seem off to me. This is the “gut feeling”-type reason that Xite so often uses.

Also, any particular reasons as to why I’m in your top 2, or do you abide to the Xite notion of cases?

FoS: Nacho

____

@Overall:
I think Xite-Comp or Xite-Nacho is quite possible at this point…

[Rain]

His vote on Reverse was scummy because it came after both Xite and Mirhawk agreed with the Reverse vote (guaranteeing 3/5 votes). It is also scummy because he completely ignored Mirhawk and mine's case when it was originally stated, but seemed to agree with Mirhawk's sentence-long synopsis in the "Mirhawk agrees" post; also, it's very strange how he distances himself from the Reverse wagon even while jumping on it; "it indeed does seem suspicious to vote with a flimsy reason".

Jumping on a wagon against a lurker a day before the deadline is a complete null-tell. Regardless of whether or not Reverse was scum, it was better than having no lynch at all. This does not change the fact that it is a flimsy reason to pick a person to be lynched...

Also, I find it curious how you started the whole "Lynch-a-lurker" because there wasn't enough time to lynch anybody else and have then proceeded to vote or push for a vote against essentially everyone who joined your wagon...

So, I switched Xite and Mirhawk on my scumlist, showing that I now found Xite scummier than Sleepless, meaning that I was likely to votehop. Sure enough, Rain immediately votes for Xite with a case that is composed of issues that were already resolved or was parroted from other people. This is scummy because it showed that Rain was biding his time for one of the non-Xite wagoners to make a move and pretty much guarantee the Xite lynch before he was willing to vote.

Actually, as you pointed out in your links for reference, my first post against Xite came 11 hours before your list. I then continued to write my post against Xite and eventually capped it off with a vote. Thanks for thinking that I base my activity around your posts though, I appreciate it.

Keep it coming...

[Rain]

You haven't responded to my bit about your Orphen vote. Does that show that you acknowledge that what I said there was correct, or you simply can't defend yourself?

His vote on Orphen was only made after Orphen became the first person to attack him. This is especially scummy because Rain didn't add to his original case on Orphen in his votepost at all; the only reasons he really added were "there are such things as stupid questions, and you're asking them", which shows that he was trying to deflect from the questions Orphen was asking him by calling them stupid.

I did not deem your comments against my actions towards Orphen to warrant an explanation. First of all, my early spat with Orphen was over a misunderstanding (quite literally) about my post on buddying up. I misunderstood what Orphen was talking about, and took it as a sign of him stubbornly trying to defend a lost cause. I since dropped it, and made the mistake clear in previous posts.

Second of all, this is not a case of opportunistic voting. I had an argument with Orphen and capped it off with a vote. Nowhere in your post did you mention why this is "opportunistic". This seems to me to be a feeble attempt at linking these posts to your predetermined theory on my gameplay.

Finally, you also grossly exaggerated the nature of my votepost. You took one line from it and made it seem as if the entire post was like that. Upon rereading that post, I do consider it quite aggressive, as have been many of my posts. But I wouldn't say it was opportunistic, or particularly scummy.

This does not change the fact that it is a flimsy reason to pick a person to be lynched...

Lynching someone, simply because the deadline is approaching and that person hasn't contributed as much as others, is a flimsy reason to pick that particular person... How can I explain this any further?

My wagon? I haven't had a serious vote placed on me this entire game; what wagon are you talking about?

You misunderstand, I was referring to the wagon you essentially started against reverse, not any wagon against you.

You came in, guns blazing against lurkers, and claimed RS was the person to be lynched because of *one* comment he made at the start of the game. Now, people followed suit, simply because it was better to lynch someone than no one at all. Since then, you have systematically targeted everyone who followed in your footsteps in the RS lynch. Regardless of the fact that the reason they had to vote was the very reason you yourself provided (better than no lynch, which is a valid reason, especially with a day left before the deadline)...

You seem intent on misunderstanding me...

[Rain]

Ok, I had slight suspicions against computing and shotty's entrance (and quicklynch attempt) has done nothing to change that...

If this was true, then why did you attack Xite for it?

You're right, I did attack Xite for jumping on the RS wagon. However, I was focusing on how eagerly she did it, without a thought for her previous cases and targets, not for attacking RS...

If this was true, then why didn't you call Xite scum or even scummy in your first post against Xite?

Wait, did I attack Xite or didn't I?

It can't be true when it supports your case and false when it doesn't...

[Rain]

You guys have a little less than 2 days until deadline.

Can we close in on a decision guys?

Nacho, can you post the rest of your case against me?

[Rain]

Nacho appears to be just killing time...

I'm more apt to believe that Nacho is scum, but if he flips town and Rain is still alive after N2, then I think he is scum.

Xite's distancing herself from Nacho and preparing for a possible mislynch tomorrow based on WIFOM...

24 hours before deadline...

[Rain]

I'm all for lynching nacho right now... I think he tried to protect Xite last minute and failed, and Xite was purposefully distancing herself from him towards the end by placing a vote right at the end (without any form of case) to try and protect him today...

[Rain]

Anybody out here? ...out here? ...out here?

How about we get things started with a vote

VOTE: Nacho, based on the suspicions outline in my previous posts

[Rain]

well nacho has been online several times since this day started but hasnt posted anything here. he may have been busy but it does look like he either forgot about this game or has given up...

i'm still all for lynching him cause i'm fairly confident hes scum, and i think if he gets replaced, we will just waste more time on someone who we all agree is the most suspicious at the moment.

[Rain]

While Nacho hasn't fully explained himself to everyone. I have to agree with him that because xite flipped scum, his cases and the reasoning behind them were completely thrown out and he needs to start looking in a different directions. That being said, it would be good to post the rest of your case against me (even if it doesn't particularly make sense at this point), to, at least, show that you weren't explicitly lying about that and that you weren't just grabbing at straws to defend xite.

All things considered though, I still want to lynch Nacho. With him currently lighting up on everyone's scum radar at the moment, I simply feel that if he doesn't get lynched today, this conversation will just resume tomorrow and he'll just get lynched then. Why wait when we're all so confident? Let's see how he flips and move on from there.

[Rain]

Still here, just don't really have much to say. I really just want to see how Nacho flips, and move from there... although I'd be really surprised to see him flip townie, at which point ill need some serious rereading...

[Rain]

Nacho, who would you say is most suspicious and why?

[Rain]

Agree with Orphen's previous post...

It might be bad play on our part, but I simply don't have any significant cases on any of the other remaining players (who I had all placed as somewhat townie in a previous read through the thread)...

[Rain]

I'm here but I need to reread...

[Rain]

Alright well I was hoping you guys would spark some discussion, but apparently that isnt going to happen.

So, I've been looking at your interactions with Xite to judge which one is more likely to be scum, and while both of you have been targeted by her and have targeted her, some things have stood out:

The cases between Xite and Orphen were quite weak, and perhaps weaker than what was put out against other players. Indeed, orphen even said that his case wasnt based on any good arguments (which he discarded early), but continued to press it at times. Also, while sleepless attacked Xite and then kept it up during all of day2, Orphen and Xite's votes between each other were often being unvoted and revoted without a very strong conviction behind it.

During day2, both Xite and Orphen speculated about why I wasn't NK'ed despite being the most townie looking player during day1, since there was a risk of doctor, (no one mentioned this), this appears like something that would have been discussed between scum during the night when picking the kill. For reference, the main posts were 265 and 286.

Also, voting against themselves between Xite and Orphen was entirely done when the threat of lynching was minimal. Indeed, Orphen took the first opportunity he had to unvote Xite when Xite was put at L-1 during day2. Also, Orphen appeared to be defending Xite somewhat when the possibility of a lynch was getting closer...

Day3 is essentially a null-tell, it only confirmed nacho and mirhawk as townie...

So I'm essentially leaning towards Orphen being scum right now, as his interactions with Xite seem to suggest that his votes against her werent fully genuine. As for sleepless, unfortunately he hasnt posted much earlier in the game and lateralus didnt really do much, but his attack on xite which lasted from day1 until her lynch seemed more genuine.

Not putting a vote right away, but as I said, so far its looking like Orphen is scum...

[Rain]

EBWOP: (no one mentioned this) should be (no one else mentioned this)

[Rain]

I was about to mention that you can't possibly have been roleblocked since I'm not the doctor (meaning it isn't the build with cop + blocker)...

Well, orphen, any last comments?

[Rain]

Alright well I'm getting pretty impatient and I'm just going to go with my gut feeling and VOTE: Orphen...

[Rain]

Bah... shouldve read more into the fact that sleepless's claim came so late and after my case, but he always started the days late so I just brushed it off...

In the end, orphen and sleep played similar games, they both attacked and got attacked by xite and both of them were happy to follow with the nacho lynch, but sleep played a key part in lynching xite while orphen didnt, thats what it came down to for me...

I dont think orphen couldve said anything to change my mind at the end...