Surprisingly Normal Mini Mafia III

On June 03 2011 06:18 prplhz wrote:
/in

Hi I just died in PTP because apparently I played terrible

I just hope this game will move a bit slower.

On June 04 2011 11:13 prplhz wrote:
Good evening

Baller daypost. So a lot of fresh faces here today and a couple familiar ones too. I am going to bed right now. Would be nice if everybody could say hi so we don't have to wait until 1 hour before deadline before seeing you guys.

Also this is gonna be a first but ..

Are you going to post a list of different setups like you did for SNMMII or are we left in the dark about that?

On June 04 2011 11:18 Varpulis wrote:

More roles on list, many many more variations. I'm going to guess no. This is a more complex setup.

What do you guys think should be a good policy for lurkers? Pressure day 1, or make a note for later while we scumhunt?

I've found that day 1 scumhunting is often very hit and miss, and finding an actual mafia member day 1 is rare. The earlier we weed out the inactive players, the better off we'll be, I think. I've seen too many games that start off great for town but wimper and die once the active townies are all dead, and all we've got left is lurkers and scum. I'd like to avoid this, If possible.

On June 04 2011 13:58 sinani206 wrote:
Varpulis, why did you change your mind so quickly after Hesmyrr posted?

On June 04 2011 18:23 Palmar wrote:
Here we go.

If you're a Veteran you should claim now. The mafia doesn't have anything to frame or set up our cop, so all we have to do is to check you on night1 and we have a confirmed veteran townie, along with a lot of useful information. The mafia would have to use two nights if they wanted to get rid of him, and it doesn't even provide a target for the roleblocker to stop.

If we only have one claim for a veteran we don't even need to waste a cop night action on the guy. If he looks scummy we can always just lynch him later on. Main thing is that we get a ton of information from a veteran claim.

On June 05 2011 01:20 Mataza wrote:
LOL.

OriginalName, read. I said EXAMPLE, because I wanted to explain how scumhunting works to someone who has no clue.
I could have said Palmar dies and then I get suspicious.
Seriously read plz.

On June 05 2011 10:21 prplhz wrote:
Okay I'm gonna see if I can do two things at the same time and get both a lurker and a scum.

sinani206
The guy has had 7 posts so far one "hi" post, two posts listing inactive people, two math posts, one posts where he says he's rather lynch lurkers over the scummiest player and then one single post that has any content at all; one where he asks Varpulis if he didn't change his mind rather fast.

7 posts, no content at all. This is a guy desperately trying to be active while desperately not trying to attract any attention at all. This is scum.

##Vote sinani206

On June 04 2011 20:40 Palmar wrote:
you're scum.

On June 04 2011 23:43 Palmar wrote:
I'm in favor of lynching you.

On June 05 2011 05:55 Palmar wrote:
Also, Mataza is scum.

On June 05 2011 07:07 Palmar wrote:
Not changing my vote though, cause Mataza is scum.

How about you go through the thread, and pick one person that you think is most likely to be scum. Look for stuff that stands out, something that just doesn't seem right, any deliberate flaws in logic, and so on.

On June 05 2011 14:18 sinani206 wrote:


They both are. Just press all and look for JeeJee.

On June 06 2011 02:46 OriginalName wrote:
At the Moment most of my opinions from yesterday still stand.

The only really new thing I have to bring to the table is i'm going to push stefftastiq harder as in anycase lynching lurkers now is better than having them at Lylo, and considering this is a mini game this is going to come much much sooner than we want. I highly suggest lynching him today unless he really steps up.

##Vote Stefftastiq

On June 06 2011 03:16 prplhz wrote:
@Varpulis

Maybe your pressure of the lesser active people in this game would work better if you didn't clearly state that you are not going to press for a lynch and that you are going to vote sinani206 later.

On June 06 2011 06:06 Palmar wrote:


Incorrect. Following my actual analysis on sinani206, I switched my vote to him.

I think youngminii is town, but I can't be sure. I still think Mataza is acting kinda scummy, but sinani feels like the right thing at the moment, we don't need a town accountant to tell us vote scores and keep a list of inactive players.

On June 06 2011 05:31 sinani206 wrote:
OK, now that that's settled, I am staying with my vote on stefftastiq for reasons that I have already stated. What else do you want me to say?

On June 06 2011 06:19 Varpulis wrote:
Alright, my vote on OriginalName is accomplishing nothing at this point. He needs to step up his posting or I'll be gunning for him later.

---

sinani206

My previous analysis of Sinani can be found here

Since then, he posted

In this post, he pretends that he doesn't know what he was expected to post. I call bullshit. He's avoiding posting an opinion and hiding behind his lurker vote. At this point, he's playing to a scum objective, by lurking actively and not giving us quality posts to analyze.

##unvote OriginalName
##vote sinani206

---

As an aside, i've got a major noobtown read on stefftastiq atm.

On June 06 2011 12:11 Varpulis wrote:
sorry guys. Something came up, wasn't there for the last hour. Should've switched my vote, my bad. I'd welcome a cop checking me, as long as I'm not miller (fingers crossed).

There is a difference between accusations and pressure. I was pressuring pretty much everybody, and it was to spread out and sporadic to have any real effect. It's not that I accused everybody of scum. i accused plenty of people of playing poorly, but bad play != scum. Bad play should be rectified, hence all my pressure on players who were lurking/not making sense.

It sucks that sinani flipped townvet, but in a way it was a good thing. There was plenty of discussion about him, and I think it will be important to see who gave a lackluster "what they said" reason and joined the bandwagon.

On June 06 2011 09:34 Varpulis wrote:
Plan: Cops check sinani. DON'T CLAIM COP If he's scum, find another way to communicate it. Call his claim under scrutiny later, and analyze his posting to show that he's scum. Claim only if you think you're going to die.

We proceed to lynch OriginalName, for lurking and not posting content. He has joined all the major bandwagons and posted only his opinion of those players that he's voting for, basically just repeating what everybody else is saying.

Thoughts?

On June 07 2011 17:58 stefftastiq wrote:
OriginalName might be scummy - good points in the posts above - Im still suspicious about youngminiii tho - but he has atleast stepped up.

this is indecisive. He basically says "yeah, he could be scum, but so could that other guy."

About me not having written anything about prplz and dementrio is that Ive felt they have had pretty townish behaviour - Varpulis points out that pprplz started the wagon against sinani, which might be something - altho I was pretty convinced of sinani myself.

I think this is a defense about something, but the last sentence is strange. He states that prplhz starting the bandwagon might be scummy, but might not. again, indecisive.

ill put a pressure vote originalname for now - youngminii still second on my scummylist, what is suspicious is that if scum just "hide" in ON's vote or would they try to find another target if he really is scum?

Bandwagoning counts as pressuring now? Last part is just useless

##Vote: OriginalName

On June 08 2011 10:32 stefftastiq wrote:
right now i think the scum is


youngminii
Varpulis
OriginalName


All three of you seem to avoid yourself as a subject - and rather try to push for votes at other players.

On June 09 2011 11:06 prplhz wrote:
God dammit Varpulis, I thought you were the nightpost!