I'm not quite so convinced of Chocolate's guilt yet. I do see the soft defenses of zarepath like Adam mentions. I'm not quite so sure of the chainsaw defense Adam puts forth. CosmosXAM only described Chocolate as 'mildly suspicious' and this is from a move Chocolate explains to my satisfaction with this post. CosmosXAM then quickly moved onto attacking SacredSystem. I don't really see a chainsaw defense from zarepath as necessary when the squabble was small and short lived and 2 pages back. Also, in my case against zarepath I brought up how zarepath seemed to be taking his cues from Simberto, specifically pointing out that Simberto had already gone after CosmosXAM a few times making him a safe target. Obviously now I think that zarepath was taking his cues from Simberto because they were actually working together, instead of in an attempt to make his plays look more pro-town. Back to Chocolate. I have not really investigated Chocolate the way I have with Simberto and as such I am not willing to discount the analysis of multiple players. However, returning to my above points. My view is that Chocolate is not so cut-and-dry scum as Adam thinks. Right now I'm confident Adam is a townie so I value his analysis. I will try to look into Chocolate more carefully tomorrow but after Simberto I will still be looking at SacredSystem as the next scummiest player.

I will leave you with this thought before I go to bed. Zarepath repeatedly pointed back to the less active players and lurkers when he was under pressure. Even including his last post where I had him pretty well locked into a lynch. I have said before and I will say again, this points to at least 1 mafia remaining among the active players. In virtually everyone's lists of mafia at the start of the day, zarepath was the most active member. Think about that, and good night.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 01 2012 18:48 GMT

#504

The thing is, if I was just trying to pressure Simberto, this is the point where I would back off. The quality of his posting has gone up since my accusation, and some of his defense actually sounds pretty good. However, I want to get a lynch on Simberto, so I go back to my original case against him and it still holds strong. The three pillars of that case

are the things that Simberto has had the weakest defenses against. So I am going to hold my vote on Simberto and I hope 2+ more of you will vote him as well.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 02 2012 03:05 GMT

#532

Oh dear, time to rethink this again.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 02 2012 03:11 GMT

#533

I'm fine with moving to a 24hr day cycle, it would not affect my ability to read/post.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 02 2012 23:07 GMT

#548

Simberto coming up town has put me in a weird place. I have been using this time tonight to reevaluate and broaden my view of who could be in the mafia. I am taking a very thorough look at the cases that have been made against zelblade and chocolate. I have yet to decide between the two. But I still want to avoid focusing too hard on them and excluding possibilities. I agree about getting our ideas out now instead of waiting at the last moment. So here is where I am at now. I no longer know what to think about SacredSystem or CosmosXAM. Both the zelblade case and the Chocolate case have valid points and right now I'm ok with focusing them day4 (the cases against them, not the cases they present). I also want to go through Simberto's day3 posts again and see what his suspicions were.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 03 2012 00:51 GMT

#557

Interesting theory sl0osh, I can definitely see what you mean. Bromancipate/zelblade would fit into a similar framework as Simberto/SacredSystem did for me day3. I still think it is very likely mafia have a godfather because of us having at least 2 blue roles (which by extension would mean we have a detective making it 3) and from a day1 mafia perspective it would make sense to make the godfather the only person who had played before. And if Bromancipate is mafia, it makes sense that zelblade would be the other one due to Bromancipate being the person initially pulling suspicion off zelblade. Yet another thing for me to look at going into day4.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 03 2012 03:47 GMT

#575

Alrighty then, the time has finally come. I am the Detective. You know this to be true, but to make sure, I have been breadcrumbing.
The first night I investigated CosmosXAM, he was a Townie + Show Spoiler +

First character first line, second character second line, x=x. Forms the word checking in a diagonal line pointing to CosmosXAM in this post.

The second night I investigated SacredSystem, he was a Townie + Show Spoiler +

In this post I formed the word investigate out of 'inv'entory, 'esta'blish, 'gat'her, lik'e', all leading to SacredSystem.

The third night I investigated zelblade, he was a Townie + Show Spoiler +

In this post I did the same thing as with SacredSystem, except with the words 'in', 've'ry, 'sti'll, waitin'g', 'at, th'e', leading to zelblade.

So now, what to do with this information? I have not checked sl0osh, Adam, Bromancipate, or Chocolate. Given the nature of the day1 performances of all the people I have checked so far (lurking) I find it unlikely that a godfather is among them, especially with Bromancipate on the board. I have strong town reads on sl0osh and Adam, and apparently Adam has been saved tonight, (still waiting on confirmation). This leaves our remaining mafia as Bromancipate and Chocolate.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 03 2012 04:43 GMT

#584

Well done everyone, sorry for getting you killed Simberto. Huzzah!

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 03 2012 05:37 GMT

#597

I find it amusing that my fear of a godfather in the game had me picking less active people for my investigations all game. Then it turns out there was never one in the first place -_-.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 03 2012 06:05 GMT

#610

So I clearly tunneled Simberto. I wasn't actively posting as much as I should have been. But in general I think I played this game decently. Advice?

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 04 2012 01:12 GMT

#634

For most of day one I was wary of zarepath because of his activity without saying much. It was what happened after he defended himself against sl0osh that tipped it for me. There was the "I've done nothing but" statement that rang very false to me. And then the 2 posts bantering with fakepromise right before the lynch just screamed "whew, safe, everything is going to plan" at me. After that I just tore through his filter for any scummy bits to try and build a larger case.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 04 2012 03:57 GMT

#640

Well, I had a ton of fun for my first game. Hoping to get into another game soon, but I definitely think I need another newbie game. Will another one be hosted in the near future?

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 05:11 GMT

#658

Strangely, it was zarepath's first post that made me think zelblade was mafia. For zarepath to go for a random lynch with a system that was anything but random made me think that they had planned a little exchange between them that would establish them both as contributors without raising too much suspicion.

My biggest regret that whole game was holding back my opinions and waiting to make large, thought out posts. I realized I did it day 1 and thought I was dead because I was clearly acting like a blue (hi5 sl0osh). I really should have just put all my suspicions on the table as I had them. It would have made me look more green than blue and I think it would have kept me from tunneling as much.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 05:53 GMT

#676

No lynch is a perfectly fine move if you get to the end of the day and are not confident in any of your reads, and the whole town feels similarly.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 06:08 GMT

#679

I have come to realize that it is possible through a number of things like inactivity or general confusion for the town to not know wtf is going on. Especially if you get towards the end of a day and it is clear that someone is about to be mislynched, it is better to derail the train pushing for a better candidate and risk a no lynch than it is to let the townie die. I don't think this applies to day 1 when you really do need as much information as possible to understand people's day1 posts.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 06:10 GMT

#681

For example, if you had stepped up to bat for Simberto, and others had rallied, there was a very good chance I would have backed off. I was already worried when I couldn't pick apart his defense as readily as I wanted. At that point I was too far in to pull myself out, but I could have been convinced.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 06:32 GMT

#685

That is interesting, I was focusing on mentions, but paying attention to quotes is something I didn't consider.

DoYouHas

United States1140 Posts

February 10 2012 18:04 GMT

#697

I would say lynching your surest read for mafia is almost always the best course. A suspect's position and influence and the amount of information you get from the lynch come second to reducing mafia numbers. In the example of zelblade, if we had lynched him because he 'gave us more information' then Simberto might have ended up looking more red and Prob/Jitsu more green. With your Simberto vs Chocolate debate pushing Chocolate was the better option (I know it is hypocritical for me to say). Looking at their posts, Chocolate flipping red would all but clear Simberto, the reverse could also be true but it would be less definite. In a situation where 1 flipping red clears the other, and that 1 happens to be your strongest scum read, you have to push it.