Newbie 1072 - Game Over!

[Twistedspoon]

Yes, quickhammering is usually a bad thing to do, but it's so tempting and is always worth it if the player flips scum. Charlie's question-doging leads me to believe he may be

I probably wouldn't be able to resist hammering if I had the chance to right now. Good thing I'm not in that position then.

Farmer, please post more.

I think it's slightly unfair to pick on only farmer here.
but yes, moar posting is nice

[KingTwelveSixteen]

Well, uh. I'm just gonna vote and put him at L-1 like I originally said before I acted like an idiot.

Vote: Charlie

NOW

he is at L-1.

[Mute]

Charlie: Not enough to take it to L-2 at that stage, no. Counter question to you. Would YOU have placed that vote if I had and taken it to L-1? Or were you trying to make a point?

I don't know. I guess I was just trying to make a point.

Which was?

Charlie what was the purpose of that question? I can't see a town-motivation for asking how someone felt about their role.

A straightforward answer is that is one of many questions from a "standard" Random Questioning Stage (RQS) that I picked up and decided to use here. The responses has exceeded my expectations.

Okay, yeah I'm comfortable with my vote.
Charlie I asked you why you asked that question, and your justification/response was "I saw others do it and I got more than I expected;" this is not answering the question. Skirting around it is scum-behavior. How about you share your initial expectations and why the response has "exceeded" your expectations.

@Ghostlin: Good point on the claiming part. I'd like to add that it is bad play for Townies to lie about their role. Time and again, it has showed no proven benefit except in rare cases (and Newbie games are as standard as a game can get, so don't do it!)

Ghostlin's vote and reasons against me is noted, I have no comment on the matter at this time.

First, yes if this is how you go about giving IC advice mixed in with gameplay I'd like to ask for you to bring notice to it that stands out from gameplay. Hide it behind spoilers, bold and italicize the text, something. Hell, there's one BBC code that entirely encases text in an embossed box. I don't remember what it's called but that could work too.

Next though, why do you not have a comment? I know it's not inherently scum-behavior to refuse to answer a question, but in context of your actions so far it is.

-----------

Right, so I noticed a mixed response to my actions and it seems I've been put in the spotlight a bit. I'd like it be known that I'm a little busy IRL in the coming week so I'll definitely not be a rapid poster.

This I don't know how to interpret correctly. My brain's giving me a few options.
1) I am actually going to be busy so please don't lynch me before I can defend myself.
2) I'm going to use the "I won't be here much" for an excuse to stall the wagon on me because town's caught me.
3) (an extension/alternative to two) I'm gonna now go hide in the corner and watch what you all do because I wanna see how my actions affect town.

Again you mention getting mixed responses to your actions, and addressing that there's a wagon on you. What defenses have you mounted thus far other than "I see people noticing my actions, interesting.. *rubs chin*"


---
Preview Edit:
I see that

now

Charlie's at L-1. NO ONE ELSE PLACE A VOTE UNTIL CHARLIE EXPLAINS HIMSELF. If he turns out to be town I want to see what his results from the questions he asked were, if they could help us find scum.

[Ghostlin]

EBWOP: I just realized I threw around a lot of Mafia terms without explaining them first:

VI:

Village Idiot, a player that plays poorly or does stupid things during a game. These players are dangerous because often times scum can affect this and town will mislynch them, or if they don't, they hang around later and are dangerous in endgame.

L-#:

This is lynch minus a number. This is the number of votes need to lynch someone. L-1 means one vote left to lynch.

Lylo:

Lynch wrong and lose. This is the situation where scum/town are in endgame and if town doesn't lynch scum, the game is over with a scum win, and town has no option but to lynch. There is a 5 player lylo (3 town, 2 scum) and a 3 player lylo (2 town, 1 scum) in newbie games.

Mylo:

Mislynch and lose. Unlike Lylo, this means if town lynches wrong, they lose, but not lynching at all is a possible option. (In newbie games, this happens after a successful doc protect.) The general wisdom says unless you have an obvious scum candidate, no lynching is acutally the correct play, and you usually don't want to add analysis so scum doesn't get more info going into Lylo.

quickhammer:

Casting the lynch vote without realizing you're doing it (or doing it to cut off analysis). The first is town in a dumb moment, the second is generally considered scummy.

[Ghostlin]

EBWOP: This is why SE's shouldn't give advice, except I do this all the time in normal gameplay.

Mod, can you fix the tags for bold in my last post?

IIRC, this is twice now. Use the Preview button please

[gxw]

Wow, post #69 is very scummish, for the reasons people have stated. I would be in favor of hammering him, depending how good his defense is.

[Ghostlin]

Wow, post #69 is very scummish, for the reasons people have stated. I would be in favor of hammering him, depending how good his defense is.

Do not. I repeat, do not hammer, until at least a defense and a claim has been done and we've all had time to discuss it.

Anyone hammering at this point will be the primary lynch candidate for Day 2 in my book unless I have a compelling reason otherwise.

[FarmeriXi]

@ Ghostlin: Sorry if I am not posting enough. I thought my last post would suffice until more of the Charlie situation was discussed.

As stated earlier, I am not going to jump on the Charlie wagon so quickley. My last game, (which was my first here --1050) I found a player (Albert B. Rampage) to be quite an erratic poster who tended to contradict himself which ultamilate led me to making a huge mistake in Day 2, leading a lynch mob that was to easy for the mafia to jump in. I do not want to make the same mistake in this game and esp. on Day 1. We have plenty of time and I feel that if I pay close attention and make good notes I will see the mistakes of the scum.

I do feel as much, one if not both of the scum are already on the Charlie Wagon. Getting a tell is the hard part. So far, as mentioned in my previous post, the only real question I have was directed toward KTS for his "probably vote Charlie" comment. That was very scummy to me and I know he has given his reasoning, but that doesn't take back the original comment. More so, in his defense he stated he would not vote if Charlie is at L-1. His recent vote placed Charlie at L-1. Funny thing about that is that his post #72 he claimed then Charlie was at L-1 which Ghostlin corrected stating he was at L-2, then King's very next post was a vote for Charlie placing him at L-1.

Clearly scum. King will not be the reason Charlie is lynched at L-1 by placing a hammer, but King will put Charlie at L-1 making it an easy lynch for the mafia. King says,

Charlie is at L-1, next vote on him lynches, so don't go voting wildly.

but then his next move is to put Charlie at L-1. If so worried why vote? Charlie clearly has enough pressure on him at L-2 to withhold a L-1 vote for a little bit.

[FarmeriXi]

BTW, I will be off for 3 or 4 hours tonight due to Masonic meeting, if we get hit hard by bad weather moving afterwards, it may be longer.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vote Count 1.4

Twistedspoon - 3 (gxw, Dazzy, Charlie)

Charlie - 4 (Mute, Ghostlin, Twistedspoon, KingTwelveSixteen)

KingTwelveSixteen - 1 (FarmeriXi)

Not Voting - 1 (Forseti)

5 to Lynch.

Click for Deadline

[Forseti]

I actually do not like this Charlie wagon, not to the point of someone being supposedly willing to hammer him certainly.

Here's why.

How do you know that the two scummers haven't yet voted and could hammer me before you retract your vote? How can you therefore have this confidence you claim you have, unless you know who the scummers are and who will therefore vote and hammer?

Taken from the post in which TS voted Charlie.

How does this even make sense as part of the reason for Charlie's vote on you being scummy in a 2 scum game? If they're both NOT on your wagon... OBVIOUSLY only town WOULD be on your wagon, including Charlie, no?

Not to mention, of course, that a double-scum quickhammer would be highly idiotic.

Combined with your post #75, which to be honest stinks far more of the rashness Charlie's been accused of than anything he's actually done... REALLY not liking your case here.

The question dodging on Charlie's part after being asked straight out the meaning of some his plays... that I can see as a reason to vote. You, however, barely mentioned that in your case, throwing it in like an afterthought, and even though you were questioning Charlie PRIOR to his vote on you, you only got hyped up about voting him AFTER he voted you, something about this stinks of veiled OMGUS and not wanting to be the biggest wagon on the block, since it put him at L-2 right along with you.

Also, KingTwelveSixteen... you talked about Charlie's "SEEMING contradictions" (your words) before you placed your vote, yet you've never expanded on this. What are Charlie's contradictions, in your own words please.

Oh, and also...

Vote: Dazzy

Wiith Charlie at L-2, he basically threw up a post (#60) that read to ME like he wanted to throw more weight at the pressure on Charlie (who at this time was L-2) without ACTUALLY voting or even referencing the possiblity of voting, not to mention the way he backed up part of it by referencing how the SE players saw things the way he did. They both voted for Charlie, Dazzy did not, mixing a little buddying in there along with trying to push a Charlie lynch along while maintaining the ability to say he didn't vote for the guy were he to flip town.

On top of that, even with both SE players in the game on the lynch, I'm AMAZED how fast a wagon built up on the game IC, wonder how often newbie-scum gets scared of the IC and looks for an opportunity to get rid of him around here?

[KingTwelveSixteen]

...
More so, in his defense he stated he would not vote if Charlie is at L-1. His recent vote placed Charlie at L-1. Funny thing about that is that his post #72 he claimed then Charlie was at L-1 which Ghostlin corrected stating he was at L-2, then King's very next post was a vote for Charlie placing him at L-1.

Clearly scum. King will not be the reason Charlie is lynched at L-1 by placing a hammer, but King will put Charlie at L-1 making it an easy lynch for the mafia. King says,

Charlie is at L-1, next vote on him lynches, so don't go voting wildly.

but then his next move is to put Charlie at L-1. If so worried why vote? Charlie clearly has enough pressure on him at L-2 to withhold a L-1 vote for a little bit.

Lynching someone and putting someone at L-1 are two very different things. One of the two ends the day and kills the person, just as an example.

...
So far, as mentioned in my previous post, the only real question I have was directed toward KTS for his "probably vote Charlie" comment. That was very scummy to me and I know he has given his reasoning, but that doesn't take back the original comment.

So...what? Was my explanation lacking somehow? I thought I explained why I did that fairly well. Or are you just saying that it doesn't matter what defense I give its scummy no matter what? Even if I had a perfectly good reason for doing what I did?

I actually do not like this Charlie wagon, not to the point of someone being supposedly willing to hammer him certainly.

I have no idea what that hammering part is saying.

...
Also, KingTwelveSixteen... you talked about Charlie's "SEEMING contradictions" (your words) before you placed your vote, yet you've never expanded on this. What are Charlie's contradictions, in your own words please.

Well, in my own words, the contradictions would be him saying he plays very cautiously and then being very not-cautious shortly afterward. Shortly after that (shortly as in, immediatly after it in the very same post) he went back to being cautious again. Thus, contradicting himself.

[Ghostlin]

Foresti:

1) What do you think of Charlie's questions that could look like rolefishing and lack of response to the case I put up?

2) I'm surprised too, the fact that it's anyone. Not the just the IC.

[Forseti]

KingTwelveSixteen: What I meant by the hammering thing was that gxw is supposedly willing to drop the hammer at this stage, which strikes me as utterly ludicrous this early.

Also, I would argue he set out his vote on TS with a certain amount of caution. Using your vote on your lead suspect =/= scummy in and of itself, and given the nature of the wagon, and given the context of his interaction with me in the leadup to it, making it perfectly obvious and plain that it's going to L-2 at that point seemed like a fairly logical thing to do.

Would you say YOU were showing recklessness or caution by putting Charlie to L-1 and shouting loudly that it was, in fact, L-1? I see little difference in the scenarios, other than the vote count. Especially not since you've been also stating your caution about doing certain things because of your past game experience. Either he made one reckless move, in which case you've been as reckless, if not more so, or what you did wasn't all that reckless, and if yours wasn't, his CERTAINLY wasn't given that TS was further away from a lynch than Charlie is.

Ghostlin: I didn't think that his questions were set out with the purposeful intent of role-fishing when I first saw them, if anything I think they were badly chosen reaction-bait. I can understand why it might be interpreted as they have been, and I could understand a couple of the votes on him a hell of a lot more if that was the platform those votes were standing on, but they aren't, and I don't interpret a lot of the other stated reasons for voting Charlie right now standing up under scrutiny.

I also don't see anything with pure role-fishing intentions being done that blatantly.

[KingTwelveSixteen]

...
Also, I would argue he set out his vote on TS with a certain amount of caution. Using your vote on your lead suspect =/= scummy in and of itself, and given the nature of the wagon, and given the context of his interaction with me in the leadup to it, making it perfectly obvious and plain that it's going to L-2 at that point seemed like a fairly logical thing to do.

Would you say YOU were showing recklessness or caution by putting Charlie to L-1 and shouting loudly that it was, in fact, L-1? I see little difference in the scenarios, other than the vote count. Especially not since you've been also stating your caution about doing certain things because of your past game experience. Either he made one reckless move, in which case you've been as reckless, if not more so, or what you did wasn't all that reckless, and if yours wasn't, his CERTAINLY wasn't given that TS was further away from a lynch than Charlie is.
...

He voted soley due to gut, and

he

thought someone might try to hammer TS. That "He thought that" part is important. That seems fairly reckless if he believed it might happen. I however, do not think that will happen. It would be pretty stupid for anyone to purpousefully quicklynch day 1, in my opinion, so I loudly said he was at L-1 so nobody would accidentally kill him. Thus, from our own points of view, I was acting cautious(ish) and he was acting reckless.
I'm gonna quote him now:

...
Mmm, I don't agree with this and you've said things which you cannot prove, like "you're almost certain". Anyway, the whole post strikes me a bit odd.

Call it gut if you will, but I believe this is deserving of a vote.

VOTE: Twistedspoon

This is L-2. That's 2 more votes to lynch, so

be careful when placing new votes on him.

A premature lynch does not benefit anyone but Mafia.
...
@Forseti: Good to see you arrive,

why are you hesitant to place TS at L-2?

Do you believe he's Mafia?
...

...

@ Charlie: Do you realise that your entire case (if you can call it that) against TS is contained in those ~3 lines above? Nowhere else have you expressed any suspicion of him in this thread. I find it extremely odd that an IC who says

...

I'm the kind of player who'll much prefer a "wait and see" approach before forming an opinion.

It's a playstyle that some aren't comfortable with, but it works pretty okay for me.
...

...

Oh. That's a surprise. Let me clarify my position: I do play by "wait and see", by that I mean I usually wait until there is significant discussion going on first, then I comment. People have gotten suspicious of this before and way too often so I decided to say it first. Voting and scumhunting, on the other hand,

I do more often by gut

. Of course there is logic working behind it too, but

I find in LyLo situations

, based on my own preference, gut is the way to go. I put my vote there on page 2 with confidence that I'll be able to take it off to

prevent a premature lynch should TS be suddenly placed at L-1.

...

The essence of the vote was to take a stance, get discussion, but retractable if TS gets at L-1.

...

I just noticed the bolded part. Why did you bring up LyLo here Charlie?

...
Ghostlin:

I didn't think that his questions were set out with the purposeful intent of role-fishing when I first saw them

, if anything I think they were badly chosen reaction-bait. I can understand why it might be interpreted as they have been, and I could understand a couple of the votes on him a hell of a lot more if that was the platform those votes were standing on, but they aren't, and I don't interpret a lot of the other stated reasons for voting Charlie right now standing up under scrutiny.

I also don't see anything with pure role-fishing intentions being

done that blatantly.

*Raised eyebrow*
Also, which reasons specifically do you think don't stand up under scrutiny?

[Dazzy]

Hello again everyone. Apologies for the posting gap.

...
Oh, and also...

Vote: Dazzy

Wiith Charlie at L-2, he basically threw up a post (#60) that read to ME like he wanted to throw more weight at the pressure on Charlie (who at this time was L-2) without ACTUALLY voting or even referencing the possiblity of voting, not to mention the way he backed up part of it by referencing how the SE players saw things the way he did. They both voted for Charlie, Dazzy did not, mixing a little buddying in there along with trying to push a Charlie lynch along while maintaining the ability to say he didn't vote for the guy were he to flip town.
...

Forseti: It is true. I wanted to put some pressure on Charlie with that post. I had noticed some suspicious behaviour, and wanted him to clarify his position, and account for his actions. I did not back up that suspicion with a vote because, as I've said before, I will tend to almost always leave my vote on the person I find

most

suspicious. At that point, Charlie's behaviour was something that stood out, but was not worth voting on (at that point) in my eyes because I wanted him to give some clarification first.

I'll admit that quoting the SE's might have been over-doing it in this case, but I have said before that I can be over-zealous, and I really wanted some answers. Nubby? Yes. Apologies. Buddying? I don't think so.

The purpose of that post was to further encourage Charlie to answer the questions posed to him, so that I could get a better read. After his last post, I would be comfortable voting on him if he were not at L-1. You will notice that Charlie's response to my questions

and the 3rd/4th votes against him

have all been made since my last chance to post. It has been stated numerous times that we should wait for him to answer our questions properly, and that is what I was (and still am) hoping he will do. The quality of his answers will dictate a re-evaluation of my position on him.

As an aside, Charlie was at L-3 when I made my post. Only Ghostlin and Mute had voted on him at that point.

To "walk my talk" in regards to having my vote on my prime suspect:

UNVOTE:

TS has given some good responses to my issues with his play, and been fairly active. He takes a #2 spot in my scumlist for now.

Does that clear things up at all?

@ Ghostlin: Are you still comfortable with your vote on Charlie, given that he is at L-1? You initially said that your vote was incentive to have your questions answered, has it become a solid suspicion now?

@ Farmer: You say that King is "Clearly scum". Do you have any other points besides his apparent confusion on vote status that can support that claim? Care to share?

@ Twisted:

Yes, quickhammering is usually a bad thing to do, but it's so tempting and is always worth it if the player flips scum. Charlie's question-doging leads me to believe

he may be

I probably

wouldn't be able to resist hammering

if I had the chance to right now. Good thing I'm not in that position then.

Something a bit off in here...

Your approach to the value of votes implies to me that the lynch of someone would be a matter of some thought. Why are you so eager to hammer someone who "may be" scum before he has mounted a

proper

defense? Seems a little out of character... ISGMEOY (S = Still )

That's all for now my friends. See you tomorrow.

Cheers.

[Ghostlin]

@Ghostlin: Are you still comfortable with your vote on Charlie, given that he is at L-1? You initially said that your vote was incentive to have your questions answered, has it become a solid suspicion now?

In the absence of a defense, I'm not object to applying the extreme amount of pressure on a person. Charlie...hasn't given a defense to my accusations. There's few reasons to role fish even as obliquely as he did it, and paired with the second question..it didn't look good. So I applied pressure.

I've still not gotten an answer or a defense. That leads me to believe my initial belief was right: doing what they did was scummy and for scummy motives. I'm OK with taking this to lynch, but I'm not OK with that happening on Page 4, Day 1.

[Twistedspoon]

@ Twisted:

Yes, quickhammering is usually a bad thing to do, but it's so tempting and is always worth it if the player flips scum. Charlie's question-doging leads me to believe

he may be

I probably

wouldn't be able to resist hammering

if I had the chance to right now. Good thing I'm not in that position then.

Something a bit off in here...

Your approach to the value of votes implies to me that the lynch of someone would be a matter of some thought. Why are you so eager to hammer someone who "may be" scum before he has mounted a

proper

defense? Seems a little out of character... ISGMEOY (S = Still )

Yep, that's a flaw of mine. We all have flaws and that's one of mine, which is why I'm glad I can't commit it as I'm not in a position to hammer.
Now let's talk about what I do better; cracking the case

I also don't see anything with pure role-fishing intentions being done that blatantly.

I don't care how blatantly it was. That is irrelevant.

Rolefishing is a very scummy thing to do, and Charlie has failed to justify this

On top of that, even with both SE players in the game on the lynch, I'm AMAZED how fast a wagon built up on the game IC, wonder how often newbie-scum gets scared of the IC and looks for an opportunity to get rid of him around here?

Oh, you're using his IC status to defend Charlie. Well we needn't be afraid of that.
Being IC doesn't exclude him from being mafia, and that's what he certainly looks like.

If anyone opposes a Charlie lynch purely because he is IC they they are sadly mistaken. IC is just as likely to be scum as any of us. Clearly Foresti does and he's using this argument to protect scum partner Charlie
It seems you're trying to defend Charlie a little too much here.
If Forseti and Charlie turn out to be the mafia, you guys owe me a medal

Either he made one reckless move, in which case you've been as reckless, if not more so, or what you did wasn't all that reckless, and if yours wasn't, his CERTAINLY wasn't given that TS was further away from a lynch than Charlie is.

So assuming, you're townie, then one possible townie has now a higher chance of being lynched than another possible townie. So what's the problem, unless you know that one isn't townie, and therfore a a scum buddy.

The question dodging on Charlie's part after being asked straight out the meaning of some his plays... that I can see as a reason to vote. You, however, barely mentioned that in your case, throwing it in like an afterthought

I don't care how the case was phrased.
What matters is that Charlie dodged the questions which show he is scum. Double the reason to suspect him, and now you for protecting him.

Personally, If Charlie is mafia then We're giving him a chance to wriggle free and lose out hottest lead. If he doesn't have the best defence than ever before in mafia we need to hammer him.

Oh, and also...

Vote: Dazzy

Foresti, your post was scummy up till now, but now it's hilariously scummy.

You vote Dazzy without even mentioning why. you seem to think 'Oh and also' explains your vote.
You're trying to get a counter-wagon going here to protect your scumbuddy charlie. This is obvious. Especially because you didn't give a reason.

Case cracked:

scum are almost definitely Charlie and Forest
We can't lynch these two fast enough

[Charlie]

Why did you ask someone how they felt about their role? This is as good as rolefishing, which you have just said is a bad thing.

As I said before, it was part of a RQS, which is used to generate discussion. The answers don't really matter, the reactions of other people to them do. Reactions are gold, and that is what I was trying to achieve. It has exceeded my expectations because the reactions I got were strong ones; logical ones, and were all suspicion of myself. This is a trifecta!

Alarm bells should be ringing here.
How do you know that the two scummers haven't yet voted and could hammer me before you retract your vote? How can you therefore have this confidence you claim you have, unless you know who the scummers are and who will therefore vote and hammer?

Stop right here, you're trying to generalize things: based on the above you are saying that two scummers will leisurely vote you, thus resulting in your lynch, and will get off with no suspicion on them the next Day? Seriously?
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this. I'm calling

WIFOM

. Below, I'll put game theory related stuff inside mech tags, so as to separate my actual gameplay with important IC-related stuff (I realize that I should have done this from the start, where it would be neater and more consistent, and thus, hopefully not affect my game-play with game theory interference)

WIFOM is part and parcel in Mafia games. Knowing how to use it well can put any player, regardless of alignment, a good player.

Relevant: An example of a game using the RQS to kick off discussion. Newbie 999 - Game Over. It is on the first page.

RVS and RQS are the most widely accepted method to start in-game discussion

@KingTwelveSixteen: You'll find my answer to your question above ^

And I've noted you've made an error in thinking I was at L-1 at that time. This is why votecounts by the mod is the most reliable, and is the best used in vote count analysis (VCA). I'll put a method on how to do a VCA properly, as I feel it is important and highly useful aspect of gameplay. Note that there are other methods, and some players do unofficial vote counts to aid their case.

How to do a vote count analysis:

1) Read the mod in ISO, copy and paste the votecounts.
2) Label them properly. The code below will come out as:

votecount data

3) Add colour to include flips. Remember not to use colours forbidden by the mod.
4) Interpret.

Code: Select all

[quote="Vel-Rahn Koon votecount #xxx"]votecount data[/quote]

-----------
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'll like you to pay attention to the quotes below:

Vote Count 1.1

Twistedspoon - 1 (gxw)
gxw - 1 (KingTwelveSixteen)
Mute - 1 (Ghostlin)
FarmeriXi - 1 (Mute)
Ghostlin - 1 (Dazzy)

Not Voting - 4 (

Charlie

, FarmeriXi, Forseti, Twistedspoon)

Vote Count 1.2

Twistedspoon - 2 (gxw, Dazzy)
gxw - 2 (KingTwelveSixteen, Twistedspoon)
Mute - 1 (Ghostlin)

Not Voting - 4 (

Charlie

, FarmeriXi, Forseti, Mute)

Vote Count 1.3

Twistedspoon - 3 (gxw, Dazzy,

Charlie

)
gxw - 1 (KingTwelveSixteen)

Charlie

- 2 (Mute, Ghostlin)

Not Voting - 3 (FarmeriXi, Forseti, Twistedspoon)

Vote Count 1.3

Twistedspoon - 3 (gxw, Dazzy,

Charlie

)

Charlie

- 4 (Mute, Ghostlin, Twistedspoon, KingTwelveSixteen)
KingTwelveSixteen - 1 (FarmeriXi)

Not Voting - 1 (Forseti)

I've taken the liberty to put myself in blue. I'll also be doing future votecounts with flipped Town members in green and Mafia in orange. Oh, and a minor note is that our mod mistakenly did two "Vote Count 1.3"s

My own interpretation of the above votecounts is that gxw and Dazzy are sitting happily on a vote since the beginning of the game (Note: Dazzy had a random vote at the start of the game, and only just recently unvoted), Twistedspoon and KingTwelveSixteen suddenly jumps on my wagon to put me at L-1. Interesting to note that Twistedspoon was the lead wagon and he does not hesitate to complete a counterwagon. FarmeriXi was the latest to vote (wasn't he the latest to post in-game as well?), whereas Forseti has not voted at all!

I actually have Town reads on both Mute and Ghostlin, but then I realize that they're both SEs and I might be fooled by their so-called "SE play". This complicates things and I'll have to re-evaluate them later.

-----------

@Mute: Some answers are already covered in the above. As for these:

This I don't know how to interpret correctly. My brain's giving me a few options.
1) I am actually going to be busy so please don't lynch me before I can defend myself.
2) I'm going to use the "I won't be here much" for an excuse to stall the wagon on me because town's caught me.
3) (an extension/alternative to two) I'm gonna now go hide in the corner and watch what you all do because I wanna see how my actions affect town.

I think you're over-thinking. I'm just saying that I'm not going to be active like 10 posts a day; more like 1 post a day or 1 post in 2 days.

I just noticed the bolded part. Why did you bring up LyLo here Charlie?

Why not, I don't see any inconsistency in that statement.

-----------

If I missed out important things, do point them out. I'll address them.
If someone states an intent to hammer, do have the courtesy to ask for a claim first. Until then, I'm not claiming (Relevant: This post from my last Newbie game)
I myself do not like wallposting (making big posts) but in this case I feel it is needed.

[Charlie]

Was I previewing till I got ninja'd with those two posts?

Doesn't matter, I'll wait till more people chime in on the discussion.

[Twistedspoon]

Interesting to note that Twistedspoon was the lead wagon and he does not hesitate to complete a counterwagon.

hahaha

At least I provided reasons (and good ones at that) unlike your friend foresti who randomly started a Dazzy counter-wagon to protect you. And then you did what is every townie's dream and both of you have now protected each other

whereas Forseti has not voted at all!

How irrelevant. But it confirms that you and Foresti are both mafia as you've both protected each other. You've rolefished and after dodging questions have tried to shrug it off.
Foesti protected charlie
Charlie protected foresti

Why did you ask someone how they felt about their role? This is as good as rolefishing, which you have just said is a bad thing.

As I said before, it was part of a RQS, which is used to generate discussion. The answers don't really matter

Trying to shrug off your role-fishing now?
It's still a role-fishing question, and nothing can deny that or the scum implications

Gxw (or another townie), If you want to hammer Charlie then go for it. He's trying to confuse you with his fancy IC talk. If he flips scum (which seems incredibly likely), then you're our hero.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tl;dr (Foresti Case)

Foresti is defending charlie too much, Approves of role-fishing, showed his scum alliance and trying to build an unjustified counter-wagon on Dazzy to protect Charlie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion: Dazzy and Charlie are the scum 99% sure; case solved.
gg guys

[Charlie]

^^ This post has so many assumption in it, it is not even funny. Also, are you deliberately trying to be anti-Town with this:

Gxw (or another townie), If you want to hammer Charlie then go for it. He's trying to confuse you with his fancy IC talk. If he flips scum (which seems incredibly likely), then you're our hero.

when I've just said this:

If someone states an intent to hammer, do have the courtesy to ask for a claim first.

?

[Twistedspoon]

strawmanning are we now?

pick the weakest part of my argument, attack that, and then ignore the rest.

strawmanning noted

[gxw]

Claim, Charlie.

And also I didn't say this:

"I just noticed the bolded part. Why did you bring up LyLo here Charlie?"

[Forseti]

Before I start this... wall-o-quotes ahead, you have been warned.

He voted soley due to gut, and he thought someone might try to hammer TS. That "He thought that" part is important. That seems fairly reckless if he believed it might happen. I however, do not think that will happen. It would be pretty stupid for anyone to purpousefully quicklynch day 1, in my opinion, so I loudly said he was at L-1 so nobody would accidentally kill him. Thus, from our own points of view, I was acting cautious(ish) and he was acting reckless.

Disagree. I don’t see the recklessness in pointing out exactly where the lead wagon at the stands after placing your vote on it. Hell, maybe he did it in case someone got their personal vote count wrong and dictated their actions based on that? *looks right at you*

Also, nearly every newbie game I’ve read here, there’s always SOMEONE who brings up the prospect of quick lynching, why it’s bad, why people should be careful when a wagon gets close to finishing off… all the permutations come up time and again. It’s game theory, and unless someone is posting game theory all the time to distract from the fact that they aren’t actually doing anything else, that’s pretty null.

So, there you go, this so-called disparity between his stated play style and his actions doesn’t match up for me.

As an aside, Charlie was at L-3 when I made my post. Only Ghostlin and Mute had voted on him at that point.

My apologies, misread of the thread on my part.

As to the rest of your answer… Calling it how I saw it. I will admit that referring to the SEs there doesn’t feel as buddyish because they were the only two votes on Charlie at that point. HOWEVER, I still don’t like the rest of it. Arguably, if he was at L-3 at that point instead of L-2, you had more leeway to vote there than not?

Put it this way, I feel less uncomfortable about your presence than I did before your last post, but if Charlie happens to flip town, I’m really going to have my eye on you.

Yep, that's a flaw of mine. We all have flaws and that's one of mine, which is why I'm glad I can't commit it as I'm not in a position to hammer.
Now let's talk about what I do better; cracking the case

Trust me mate, you don’t do that any better.

I don't care how blatantly it was. That is irrelevant.

Rolefishing is a very scummy thing to do, and Charlie has failed to justify this

Yes it is, if it’s rolefishing,
IF
RQS is fishing for reactions, not roles.

Not to mention I already said he chose poorly which questions to use, and isn't doing great at defending against that statement, which is a scummy move on his part.

However, while it's also the only part of the wagon on him I don't have a problem with, I don't think it's enough to drop a lynch on him when we're only just about to hit the 100 game posts in thread mark.

Oh, you're using his IC status to defend Charlie. Well we needn't be afraid of that.
Being IC doesn't exclude him from being mafia, and that's what he certainly looks like.

If anyone opposes a Charlie lynch purely because he is IC they they are sadly mistaken. IC is just as likely to be scum as any of us. Clearly Foresti does and he's using this argument to protect scum partner Charlie
It seems you're trying to defend Charlie a little too much here.
If Forseti and Charlie turn out to be the mafia, you guys owe me a medal

At what point did I dispute that IC status precluded him from being scum? I said that it was surprising how fast the wagon went to ready to lynch. I also wondered if in cases where the IC is town and under lynch threat, how often it was driven by newb-scum because they saw the IC as a major threat to them?

It's called a hypothetical question.

At no point have I said I'm sure Charlie's town. My point, AGAIN, is that I don't think the case on him is enough to lynch THIS SOON.

If you’re going to misrep, do a better job.

So assuming, you're townie, then one possible townie has now a higher chance of being lynched than another possible townie. So what's the problem, unless you know that one isn't townie, and therfore a a scum buddy.

At least KingTwelveSixteen got the point, which was that the vote looked hypocritical given his own stated gameplay stances. It had nothing to do with who was being wagoned and EVERYTHING to do with the reasoning for the vote.

Again. If you’re going to misrep, do a better job.

I don't care how the case was phrased.
What matters is that Charlie dodged the questions which show he is scum. Double the reason to suspect him, and now you for protecting him.

Right… tell you what. If you ever find a wagon you don’t like build up too fast in a game your playing, keep your mouth shut about it and just let it happen. Obviously, it’s far more protown to let a lynch you don’t like go through without a single objection than it is to point out why you don’t like the case.

Also, good to know you’ll push the hell out of a careless case to get a lynch, noted.

Personally, If Charlie is mafia then We're giving him a chance to wriggle free and lose out hottest lead. If he doesn't have the best defence than ever before in mafia we need to hammer him.

So, again, you want a nice quick hammer if he ain’t the Hemingway of mafia defense, on page 4, on day one. At what point did you miss how anti-town THAT sentiment is?

Oh, I know, let’s chalk it up to “a gameplay flaw”.

Foresti, your post was scummy up till now, but now it's hilariously scummy.

You vote Dazzy without even mentioning why. you seem to think 'Oh and also' explains your vote.
You're trying to get a counter-wagon going here to protect your scumbuddy charlie. This is obvious. Especially because you didn't give a reason.

Oh, never mind. I’ve figured it out now. YOU JUST DON’T READ POSTS. Apparently, you didn’t read mine, nor did you read Dazzy’s post WHERE HE REFERENCED THE REASONS FOR THE VOTE I PUT ON HIM.

Either that, or it’s the THIRD time you’ve tried to misrep me in one post.

The only obvious thing in your post is that you’ll apparently go to ANY lengths to get Charlie lynched, and the sooner the better.

strawmanning are we now?

pick the weakest part of my argument, attack that, and then ignore the rest.

strawmanning noted

Thanks for bringing this up, since on top of all the misreps, you decided to cherry pick my posts the exact same way as you just accused someone else of doing to you.

Case cracked: scum are almost definitely Charlie and Forest
We can't lynch these two fast enough

Maybe YOU can’t, since quick lynches are apparently your thing, not to mention declaring definite scum everyone who either votes for you (gxw, Charlie), or disagrees with you. (me)

Between Dazzy’s last post and your recent efforts, I’m cool with doing this.

unvote

Vote: Twistedspoon