Newbie Mini Mafia XIII - Page 8

On May 11 2012 05:03 Crossfire99 wrote:
Anacletus, don't think that defending yourself is scummy; it is just good play and everyone should do it. If you know you are town, then defend yourself and prove it. If you are actually town, and go down without a fight, then you have done nothing for us except die.

Also, what does scumwagon mean? I am unfamiliar with the term and don't know what it means.

On May 11 2012 04:56 ShiaoPi wrote:
The thing is you already got a lot of attention, probably the most right now.
I presented you the reasons why I am suspicious of your behaviour, what about trying to explain your thought-process? And for what kind of "evidence" are you waiting? I do not really understand the logic behind waiting for something to happen before defending yourself. The only thing which will give us any kind of evidence is a lynch, since that is still a bit away, I don't get your logic here.

On May 11 2012 04:46 ShiaoPi wrote:


Is that your defense? Seriously?

BroodkingEXE if you believe me scum and starting a scumwagon, I would like to know the reasons how you came to that assumption.

On May 11 2012 05:56 Jailbreaker wrote:
if you dont have much to add, then why post?

On May 10 2012 23:26 Anacletus wrote:
I am only voting because I don't have much to add. I would also like to point out that *if* we hang tofu for his suspicious behavior and he is mafia then we can rule out those voting as being mafia, no?

But if he's town, shit.

On May 10 2012 23:33 Hyaach wrote:
No edits are allowed.

IMO, i did whatever firmtofu wrote was just a innocent day 1 remark. There is nothing more suspicious about his post than yours actually.

And say "if" he was mafia, what if the mafia decided to throw him under the bus? Not a good way to rule out anything.


I'm also just voting you because there's nothing to discuss here /sarcasm

On May 11 2012 03:56 FirmTofu wrote:
What... I said that purely in jest, teasing him about the newbie game that just completed. I didn't think you guys would go batshit insane over it.

Crossfire put it best. dahdum was in a game before this and I just commented on how I hope he isn't scum again because he played well last game. I didn't think I was acting suspicious at all, but apparently it was? Regardless, we should switch up our votes onto some more scummy targets.

There are certain people that are playing very pro-town right now, but may be doing so just to gain the town's trust. It's extremely hard to tell from just Day 1 behavior, so I think our best for a lynch would be to hunt those people who are genuinely acting scummy or playing poorly.

Anacletus seems like the perfect target to start.



This quote is suspicious, for reasons mentioned previously my numerous people. However, there is an interesting phrasing of words I find rather intriguing.

See bold. What motive would anyone have to say that sentence. Is it not already a statement of fact? Why did he feel the need to reiterate something that is quite obvious to everyone that is playing: If we lynch Tofu and he's town, then we are in trouble.

Well, no shit Sherlock. Generally when town people die, the mafia gets farther ahead.

Here's my theory. Anacletus knows I am town, because I'm not on his mafia team. Therefore, he knows if and when I get lynched, I will flip town. That statement is guilt insurance and a scum tell because of it. He is trying to insure himself now so that later, he can say "Aw crap, well I was wrong, but look at my previous post where I admitted I might be wrong!"

When town members vote people, they don't know whether they are right or wrong. When mafia vote people they know the exact alignment of the person they are voting. I believe this knowledge just leaked from Anacletus the mafia.

##vote:Anacletus

On May 11 2012 04:52 BioSC wrote:
Good morning. Lets get to business. Somehow I managed to miss this post back on page 5.



If you are going to put pressure on me, at least make it substantial/useful. If you are going to quote me, quote the whole post, not half of it and take it out of context. "They" is referring to lurking players, which I am not, thus I didn't use "we". This suspicion about "misused" pronouns is silly, and only drives me to wonder about you. You have only made one post so far, and wasn't very helpful. So far, the only lurkers here are you and Mufaa, whom has yet to post ANYTHING.

Not enough to drive my vote to you, but I'm sure to keep an eye on your posts.

On May 11 2012 05:56 Jailbreaker wrote:
:D
dahdum, why are you searching for a bandwagon and state your reasons as "because." Can you give a little more insight plz?

On May 10 2012 08:17 BioSC wrote:
If they are lurking scum players, town gets a nice snipe. Should they be town, they would be just as bad as scum in that they wouldn't help town anyways.

You give me way too much credit, Unforgiven_ve. I was only bandwagoning to see who wasn't voting and who was. My plan so far is more of a cluster-fuck spider-web of ideas written in a language that I don't know.

On May 11 2012 08:28 Darkfirex5 wrote:
yeah Unforgiving i think i have to put my vote on you, ill wait a little longer before i do so, but just puting your vote on Unforgiven_ve does not seem to have any justification, you're just leaving your vote on someone with no backing/reasoning why, it seems you are trying to draw attention away from explaining yourself. You still seem the guiltiest out of everyone, maybe you should start voicing your opinon on how you are not scummy, rather than place a vote holder and do nothing productive... you're most suspicious to me. I dont know if i will be able to get on before 7 tomorrow so im voting you atm

[b\]##Vote Anacletus

On May 11 2012 06:32 ShiaoPi wrote:


I do get what you mean by "misleading due to size", there are indeed many uncertainties inside, which you could consider as "null reads". Given the fact that we have day 1 and the low amount of posts we have from some people, not being able to give out a 100% read strikes me as being absolutely normal. Reiteration is also featured because I tried to be transparent in my thoughtprocess, you may say that these things devalue the usefullness of the post, but I believe they were needed.

Do I have to repeat it again? My suspicions on hyaach are not dropped. Reread it again, I clearly state that he is still on my watchlist and also point out his lack of evidence/reason for the vote.
Here it is:+ Show Spoiler +

Now in rereading it myself I probably could have worded it a bit better.
-His posts are now related to the discussion, which is sth. beneficial to us.
-I did not say I vote with him, as in "he has convinced me", I state that I believe his vote to be understandable, since I am suspecting Anacletus myself for the reasons I posted. The next sentence is poorly phrased, I admit it. I should not have said that he could "gain more credibility as a townie" but instead said that it could move him away from the scumcamp, since he still appears fishy to me due to lacking analysis, length, depth. I did not want to make him into a "townie".

My reasons to vote on Anacletus, could be worded in the way you did, but they can also be put as I did: mismatch in behaviour, posting a vote without reasons and contradiction of himself. Anacletus' last post is finally one which makes sense, after the ones before. Finally some explanation going on, I still believe that something is fishy about Anacletus and I am not the only one, you do so as well + Show Spoiler +.