Surprisingly Normal Mini Mafia VII - Page 36

On January 25 2012 15:24 DoYouHas wrote:
There is no reason our first lynch should be random. We need to use the threat of lynching to put pressure on lurkers and suspicious people. This needs to start today. If we seriously consider a no lynch today all we do is encourage passive play. We should be creating opportunities to gain information and put pressure. The worst thing we can give the mafia is time.

On January 26 2012 03:20 DoYouHas wrote:


From the general tone of the posting so far I agree that today we are more likely to get mafia by lynching someone suspicious rather than a lurker. If people come up with better ways of getting lurkers active I am all ears.

As for things I have looked at so far, I am not going to reiterate points made on MidnightGladius and zelblade but here are a couple of people on the lurker list whose first posts were very similar and I did not like.




What bothers me in the first post is the second half. He is making the statement "That seems scummy." but unnecessarily longer and strangely worded. In his second post he tones down the strange wording a bit but more troubling is his espousing of a wait and see style. We need to be making discussion happen, not just letting it happen.



This caught my attention after I had been looking at balt11t. It is almost the exact same post. Lengthy substitute for scummy, wait and see attitude (though even worse this time), and pointing to Fakepromise's questionable agreement with a random lynch.

On January 26 2012 08:01 DoYouHas wrote:
I believe zelblade is our best lynch option. Just look at what he did when thrust into the spotlight.



He has been apologizing and clarifying posts (which were already pretty clear) ever since spl0osh criticized his second post. Instead of using the spotlight to voice his own suspicions or convince us of his innocence, he has tried to move out of the spotlight as quickly and quietly as possible, while avoiding offending anyone. While his initial posts weren't particularly scummy, his responses have been nothing but suspicious.

## Vote: zelblade

On January 27 2012 06:17 DoYouHas wrote:
I am willing to set aside my suspicion of zelblade for today in order to make my vote more relevant. As for the CosmosXAM vs FakePromise lynching, I find myself at a loss. Let me explain.

CosmosXAM seems more scummy to me than FakePromise for a few reasons.

Not only is this a weak first post that focuses on a settled issue, his second sentence says that even if we find scummy things in his posts, it is our fault for pressuring him into it. He shortly follows this with 3 questionable statements in his second post.

First, he goes after FakePromise. This is reasonable, possibly bandwagoning, and easy. I expect someone who has been lurking for a full day could find something suspicious to mention that hasn't been repeated so often. Second, he overreacts to Chocolate's placing a vote on him and lashes back purely based on that. Third, he points us to this being his first game and how rarely he will be able to post. So not only should we not expect many posts from him, but when they come we shouldn't expect them to have quality. I don't really take issue with his third post and 4-5 have no content so I'll move to FakePromise.

I don't have anything new to say on the things FakePromise has done wrong. I simply agree that his actions make for a very poor defense and he definitely is not pro-town so far. I do not agree with zarepath's defense of FakePromise. To me, it is equally likely for the explanations of 'no mafia would behave in the way FakePromise has / no mafia team would allow FakePromise to behave in the way he has' and 'FakePromise has played this first round very poorly' to be true. It is not out of the question. Especially since most of us are new players.

In spite of CosmosXAM being the scummier candidate, I believe we gain more information for day 2 if we lynch FakePromise. Not only can we start to look at people who seem to have jumped on the bandwagon but we would also gain some insight into zarepath's motivations.

I am torn between the scummier candidate and having more information. At the moment I am leaning towards CosmosXAM. In my real life mafia experience bumbling defenses like FakePromise's tend to be town who don't know how to act under pressure. I'm trusting that experience for now.

On January 27 2012 10:10 DoYouHas wrote:

Be very careful with that assumption. From the perspective of zarepath being scum I think there are only 3 possible likelihoods.
1. We lynch FakePromise, he flips town, and zarepath looks good for defending him.
2. We lynch CosmosXAM, he flips scum, and zarepath looks good for being the first real accuser.
3. We lynch CosmosXAM, he flips town, and zarepath looks the same.

I left out the possibility of FakePromise flipping scum because zarepath's own actions make it very unlikely. Just look at the statements laced through his posts.



If anything zarepath has been trying to get us to focus on who supported and attacked whoever is lynched. This makes it seem very unlikely to me that he would adamantly defend someone he knows is mafia when that person holds little to no sway over the town and is still likely to be lynched. It is far more likely that he has set himself up to defend an innocent or bus a fellow scum. He gains favor in the town regardless of the way the lynch goes. So, to counter your point, if zarepath flips red I think it is far more likely that FakePromise is town and it will cast even more suspicion on CosmosXAM.

On February 17 2012 11:51 DoYouHas wrote:
The point is not to lynch lurkers, it is to lynch scum. If a lynching a lurker is the best option we have near a deadline, then by all means, let's do it. But policy lynching is just a terrible idea. I am already looking suspiciously at the ET for espousing it.

FOS: EchelonTee

On February 17 2012 13:31 DoYouHas wrote:
ET, instead of jumping on every little inconsistency you find in order to go blow for blow with sl0osh, why not just make a note of it and present a more complete case later. Bickering can be useful, but I fear this is going to turn into Toast vs prplz.

sl0osh, I dislike your attack on ET. Pointing out that both town and mafia can have motivation for the same action just looks to me like he is covering his bases so he can't be accused of not considering all the options later. And his calling you out was perfectly founded. You were an active poster in NMM3 who looked towards putting quality in the thread. If you suddenly went lurker on us it wouldn't be a stretch to think that you were organizing the mafia in their qt.

On February 17 2012 13:56 DoYouHas wrote:
I want MannerKiss to chime in. Let those opinions fly! Who looks scummy to you and why?

On February 17 2012 14:05 DoYouHas wrote:
Then allow me to do it again. Has nothing caught your eye so far? Nothing from gumshoe or ET or sl0osh or any of the other ppl?

On February 18 2012 04:19 DoYouHas wrote:
I think it is about time we start talking about who to lynch today. With the scheduling problems mentioned by a few people, I don't think we can wait too much longer.

My current list of people I'm consdering voting for is sl0osh and MannerKiss

sl0osh, he overreacted badly to a perfectly fine way of calling him out. Everything in his exchange was just an extended version of OMGUS (attacking the person who attacked you only because he attacked you). I think it is too easy to dismiss sl0osh's failure to see the reason behind ET's actions as his standard confirmation bias. Not acknowledging that ET's initial reference to him was purely to get him talking, not to frame him as mafia. I also thought that whole post about ET's tone was just a big pot of confirmation bias.

MannerKiss, his fairly immediate response to me calling him out told me he was paying attention to the thread IE, actively lurking. The two explanations for which would be a new townie unsure of what to post, or a new scum unsure of what to post. The one-liner back at me and his lack of a response to me trying to call him out a second time make me feel it is more likely the latter.