Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Netlava]

VOTE: Oso

He seems kind of antsy.

[Netlava]

Questions:
Timezone- Pacific
Experience- a lot
Post frequency- often

[Netlava]

Ice, shorter days do not necessarily mean less content. Your excuse is pointless, not to mention invalid.

Shattered viewpoint, have we played together before? I think we may have.

[Netlava]

Equinox, thanks for disappearing for a few days. Were you aware of the BaM ruleset when you agreed to replace in? (Personally, I wasn't)

Not to seem like a jerk, but disappearing for a few days is a pretty big deal considering the deadline length. And thanks for changing your avatar after your first post.

[Netlava]

Oso, I don't follow your reasoning. No one's putting a gun to your head saying that you have to rank me and llama.

[Netlava]

Ok, fine, Ice. I can see what you mean by less content. I figured the general assumption would be for post frequency to go up to make up for the shorter deadline, thus resulting in about the same amount of content.

Oso's remark struck me odd for reasons described by llama. I can sort of follow his reasoning now.

Unvote

Also, Oso, there's no reason NOT to give a reason with a random vote, either. Whereas giving a reason may or may not provoke a response.

[Netlava]

Also, Netlava places a random vote on Oso, for "being ansty" and "antsy could describe the tone of

every one

of his posts since then.

My main objection here is that while I could see someone describing my overall posting style as "antsy," saying that every single post I've made is "antsy" feels like slightly inaccurate rhetoric.

[Netlava]

Shattered viewpoint, it's important for town to complain about playstyles (mostly lurking) so that lurkers don't skate by without saying anything. It's not rude - it's necessary.

[Netlava]

I disagree. Going after lurkers is standard and good town play. And the fact that there's 4 players who have only posted once is really irksome to me. VOTE: Fernando

Mod: What are the prodding policies in this game?

[Netlava]

@Me=weird: I chose fernando to put more pressure on him since he already has a vote.

Also, you're voting cruelty for calling much of the early game discussion useless - does that mean that you disagree with him? What's your opinion on the early game discussion?

[Netlava]

About Zinive's case, sure is suspicious, but wouldn't it be very silly of him to jump on a wagon that needs 4 more votes? I don't see a big deal there, yet.

Hmm, this is interesting. I can't tell if you are finding Zinive suspicious or if you are defending him. You seem a bit predisposed to finding Zinive suspicious, though...

[Netlava]

Sorry for triple posting, but one last thought:

It's probably better not to post entire scumlists. Transparency is good and all, but townies can never really be completely transparent to town, whereas townies are almost always completely transparent to scum. Letting scum have all that information makes it easier for them to predict what's going to happen in the game and choose night actions.

[Netlava]

Yeah, that clarifies things a lot.

Top 3 or so is fine, but going from top to bottom isn't the smartest idea, imo.

[Netlava]

Yeah, shattered's posts are definitely weird right now, to say the least. They don't make any sense, so I can't tell if he's being serious or not.

Xine is obvTown; I know of her meta through the site and she certainly doesn't strike me as a liar. Since she claims she has "not yet" played as scum, I believe her.

This is lol...

Alternate (closer to reality) answer: I'm an insufferable asshole.

I actually thought ICE had posted this (speaking for shattered) when I first read this. But it's strange for shattered to post this because it contradicts an earlier post:

There's a difference in being self-confident (like I am) and being rude. (as you are).

@Shattered: Are you serious or joking in your posts?

[Netlava]

Does it really matter how I came to the conclusion that Oso was antsy? I read his post, thought to myself, "Oso seems antsy" and voted Oso. His quick response on some side topic seemed, well, antsy.

Also, I said that I could see your point. I didn't say you were right. I figured you could be scum making up excuses to explain your drop in activity. When I saw that your activity was fine, it became a nonissue, and I stopped caring. Your excuse is still pointless and invalid, either way.

As for my vote on Fernando, it's really not that critical when I decide to move it. I'll move it if the time comes.

[Netlava]

Unvote

I'm mostly just questioning players and observing right now. I don't want to reveal who I suspect until I'm ready. *suspense*

[Netlava]

M=W, yes I find it better to focus on one player at a time.

Ice, I have already responded to your "case."

---

ONE VOTE after fernando posts does not mean he has suddenly stopped lurking, nor does it mean I have to immediately move my vote. And once a player has lurked, that player has lurked. Being more active afterwards does not change the fact that he WAS lurking.

FTR, I would consider the following players lurking:
fernando, perardua, cruelty, and me=weird. Equinox just started posting today and Xine has been getting by. IMO, it would be stupid of me to draw conclusions at this point when nearly half of the players haven't posted that much. I think it's a major mistake to only scumhunt among the active half of the town, and ignore the other half, expecting them to eventually up their activity.

Anyways, I will post some thoughts on some players later.

[Netlava]

Btw, let me add that activity is one of the more reliable scumtells.

[Netlava]

Ice, I already explained how I came up with antsy and responded to everything. Your case on me consists of the following:

1. I voted someone for being antsy
Response: That's just what I thought.
2. I conceded a point
Response: I only conceded the fact that your activity was fine. The only reason why I cared about your "excuse" in the first place was because I thought you might be preparing to post less (as scum).
3. I kept my vote on fernando when he "stopped" lurking
Response: I can let my vote sit for a bit, okay? And fernando apparently has not stopped lurking.

[Netlava]

I need to reread a bit first and then I will give my thoughts later tonight.

[Netlava]

Oso's case on llama is interesting. I don't think much of the contradiction part. The main part that intrigues me is this:

Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling,

The main thing I find interesting is that llama speaks on Ice's behalf.

Ice, what do you think of llama's "reachy" comment?

[Netlava]

I still don't get fernando's comment on Zinive.

About Zinive's case, sure is suspicious, but wouldn't it be very silly of him to jump on a wagon that needs 4 more votes? I don't see a big deal there, yet.

I mean it's such an awkward stance. I bought his explanation initially but there are still a couple things amiss:

1) He says Zinive is suspicious, but it's not a big deal

yet

I get the feeling that he's vacillating back and forth on his stance on Zinive.
2) He says he doesn't believe that Zinive was going for a lynch with his vote
If this is the case, why does he find Zinive suspicious?
3) He implies it's scummy to join a bandwagon too quickly
Yet no mention of llama who did in fact join a wagon "too quickly." In fact, Zinive never wagoned anyone.

The thing is, I feel like fernando has perhaps dropped knowledge of Zinive's alignment (which would be guilty, in this case). If this is correct, then fernando and Zinive would be likely scumbuddies.

VOTE: Fernando

[Netlava]

Request prod on fernando

Just to clarify, if fernando ends up being scum I'll look carefully at Zinive, but I don't put as much weight into the connection as fernando's stance itself.

[Netlava]

Xine, your post is kind of hard to understand.

[Netlava]

Xine, could you clarify your case on llama? I don't quite follow it.

Request prod on cruelty and shattered viewpoint

[Netlava]

Also, I noticed a couple of players saying my case on fernando is reasonable or what not. Does that mean you agree with it?

[Netlava]

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Then pick one................

[Netlava]

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Then pick one................

I have no idea how my post ended "up there." Requote, just so people so it.

[Netlava]

I don't have a town read on Zinive, but I don't have a scum read on him either. I see his general tentativeness as a playstyle issue. I'll have to reread him again before I can say anything conclusive though. I think fernando is a very good lynch choice instead.

[Netlava]

More on fernando in a bit.

[Netlava]

Why fernando makes a good lynch:

1) Has made one game-related post, one of which has been scummy.
2) Has been clearly lurking, as opposed to MIA. He has logged in between now and his most recent post, but he has not posted.

Anyways the main point of fernando's case is this:

He says Zinive is suspicious, and then disputes the very reasons for which he finds (Zinive) suspicious. So why would (Fernando) say Zinive is suspicious in the first place?

The quote is here:

About Zinive's case, sure is suspicious, but wouldn't it be very silly of him to jump on a wagon that needs 4 more votes? I don't see a big deal there, yet.

The thing is, if I were fernando and I found Zinive suspicious for wagoning, I would:
a) Find Zinive suspicious

If I don't think it's a big deal, I would:
a) Not find Zinive suspicious

Under NO circumstances would I say both because the two contradict. I'm thinking Fernando, as scum, wants to have his cake and eat it too. He gives his view as an all-knowing observer (defends Zinive), but at the same time makes the opportunistic move (finds Zinive suspicious).

And also, he swings back and forth not once, but twice. In other words, "Zinive is suspicious, but it's not a big deal, but not

yet

."

Overall, Fernando is my pick for a lynch and hopefully this clarifies my stance regarding Fernando and Zinive.

[Netlava]

Oh, one important part I left out: Fernando says that Zinive was wagoning when Zinive hadn't even voted at that point.

If I were scumhunting and I find someone suspicious for reason X, I would, you know, have to see reason X to find that person suspicious.

[Netlava]

Still waiting for shattered's viewpoint.

[Netlava]

Well, the main question now is if fernando is going to come in and claim or not.

As for Zinive's claim, most claims usually cannot be verified easily either way, but since JK is a relatively important role, I think that if Zinive is indeed the JK, scum cannot leave him alive for too long.

[Netlava]

Fernando: Last logged in: Oct 30

A little bit too late. What a dick move! Of course, I don't know your circumstances, but I can't help but feel a little miffed.

[Netlava]

Mod: Replace me