Newbie Mini Mafia XVII - Page 2

On June 14 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
As has been pointed out, the contradiction isn't as severe as I initially thought it was.

##unvote trackd00r

I thought at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r, however my case was too weak and I feel that no useful information can be gleamed from people simply agreeing on its flimsiness.

On June 14 2012 13:21 suki wrote:
Quite simply you (and several other people after you) answered your question. The motivation is to get the ball rolling some way, any way. I feel I failed a bit in that regard as my attack was so full of holes that there hardly was any discussion developed from it, but it was made with good intentions.

On June 14 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
My case on trackd00r was/is a flop, and up until your vote on alan no one has really pointed out anything suspicious about any other player

On June 14 2012 13:36 suki wrote:
@sciberbia

I think a lot of your argument stems from the impression that I was absolutely sure trackd00r was scum. I definitely worded my post that way on purpose, in spite of knowing my case wasn't solid.

I was genuinely surprised that my case was as weak as it was. Basically one good post from you was strong enough to let everyone basically say 'yeah, I agree.' My comment that 'at the very least I could rouse a response from trackd00r' was because I thought even if my case was really weak, I could aggravate an interesting reply from trackd00r, but it didn't.

Regarding the contradiction, and the comment that the contradiction isn't as severe as I thought it was. It's simply not taking the time to really think about the topic, after reading the rebuttals and being disappointed. There is no contradiction, it was just me being careless with my choice of words.

Actually, the offhanded and subtly confident way he deflected my attack is a townie point for him in my book, so as it stands I don't suspect trackd00r at all.

On June 14 2012 13:36 suki wrote:
As for opening the game, I posted my policy post after the accusation because I wrote the accusation first. I did want to start the thread off boldly, I'll give you that.

On June 14 2012 13:36 suki wrote:
Actually, the offhanded and subtly confident way he deflected my attack is a townie point for him in my book, so as it stands I don't suspect trackd00r at all.

On June 15 2012 14:01 suki wrote:
He targets Crossfire. At this point Crossfire is under pressure by austin, roflwaffle, Milton, and sciberbia. Golden and I have been the ones backing crossfire up.

On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
Crossfire99:

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if he is scum or not. Looking into the filter of his two previous games, I found that his posting style is more or less the same.

In game 1, he rolls blue and lurks quite hard. He states out of game reasons for lurking, but he plays more or less non-commital, pointing out suspicious behavior but not really heavily pressuring anyone.

In game 2 as mafia, he starts out the game by doing two things. First, he posts a defense of a townie that had come under scrutiny. Second, he immediately starts pointing out errors in one particular person's posts. He actually tunnels this person for the entire Day 1 and only just fails to get him lynched. He survives for the whole game without really being under fire and mafia wins the game.

In this game I see a lot of policy talk, a lot of guidance talk, and hardly any pressure at all. I find it quite different from his previously successful mafia play. In addition, his helpful tone is quite present in the mafia QT from the previous game, which makes me feel more inclined to think he's actually trying to help, despite his posts not really pressuring or helping town much.

Basically, his meta has changed from his last scum game, and it's changed in a confusing way, and he isn't using the tactics that lead him to a win in the previous game. I'm waiting for more contributions from him before deciding whether I think he's scum or not.

On June 15 2012 14:01 suki wrote:
I've gone through trackd00r's play in detail, now I'd like to summarize the points and explain why each point is suspicious.

1. Soft aggression vs Mouldy early on but later says he's not convinced. Slightly important point because Mafia want to avoid all targetting the same people.

2. Goes after Crossfire and Golden. Crossfire was a sort of easy bandwagon since so many players were after him. The Golden push is suspicious because so few people targeted him, one of whom was HeavOnEarth.

3. Does not comment on HeavOnEarth at all until the very very end. Definitely scum motivation for avoiding this. trackd00r was around back when s0lstice first started his push on HeavOnEarth. That was when trackd00r was pushing his cases against Crossfire and Golden.

4. His cases are all weak. He never points out scummy play despite singling out the three people who he would push for a lynch. His arguments are weak and consist of not contributing and not playing 'satisfactorily'.

There's no townie motivation that late in the day to simply target people for unsatisfactory play, as opposed to finding scummy play. There is plenty of scum motivation to try to find something, anything, to attack, while not putting themselves fully on the radar.

5. He bandwagons at the last minute on HeavOnEarth. A pointless move. His analysis is flaky. He says, "I must admit that he looks suspicious at this stage of the game."

On June 15 2012 00:06 suki wrote:
About HeavOnEarth:


HeavOn's attack against Golden is weak, and his offhanded comment on MouldyJeb is simplistic. His points against Crossfire are thought out and straightforward.

While he has not taken a strong stance against anyone, he's also not been wishy washy. He's also kind of aggravating, mocking and provoking MJ and golden while waiting for their responses. He hasn't contributed much, especially in the way of the major cases of the day, which is a big point against him. I feel HeavOn isn't as suspicious as people are making him out to be, and am waiting for his response on topics such as me, alan113 and crossfire before making a decision.