Newbie Mini Mafia XVII

Then Milton (+ Show Spoiler +), roflwaffle (+ Show Spoiler +), and Golden (+ Show Spoiler +) all jump on the bandwagon without much new to add (not necessarily scummy in and of itself, there is only so much one can add based on one day's filter). I did notice a really weird thing about roflwaffle's post, though. He's upset that we are going to get too easy of a lynch and said that he knows Heavon is suspicious but thinks it's more worthwhile to attack someone with more influence like me (huh?, I've been under suspicion all day, if anything that makes people look at me more closely, there's no way I'm going to be influential). Also, his suspicion of Heavon up to that point consists of this. + Show Spoiler + All of this suspicion came after solstice's case against Heavon and he adds nothing new to it except postulating that he could be an awful townie (we now know that's not true). This makes me suspicious of roflwaffle.

Is it just me or is trackd00r coming off as scummy already?





This post screams to me that he's trying to be super cautious with his words, so that he'll have a safety net if/when he ever changes a vote or bandwagons on someone else. He throws out some 'obvious' examples of reasons of what wouldn't agree with him, and even mentions that he would follow through on a read, even if it that means a no lynch.

BUT WAIT! Just ONE post previous to that he says this:

I won't accept a NO LYNCH unless I believe we may have a serious mislynch coming.


...

Dude. You try to take a firm stance against something, and then you do the most scummy wishy-washy-ness thing ever the very next post. You're clearly informed about mafia as you brought up the idea of a day 1 RNG lynch, and being against a no lynch is not a difficult or complicated policy to hold. I feel that such a simple logical slip only happens if you're trying to play it safe and keep your options open.

##vote trackd00r

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.

Regarding miltonkram's vote of sciberbia, I personally think it's a joke referencing our previous game XV where he votes sciberbia within the first few posts of the game. I thought it was pretty funny myself.

I feel that rofl's case on alan is not very convincing. First off, alan isn't bandwagoning on the lurker/inactive issue, at that point is split about 50/50 with half of the previous posters saying they want to focus on scumhunting and half leaning more towards a lurker lynch. Second, the game is so new that I disagree with the statement that his play is anti-town. He hasn't made any strong statements because there are few strong statements to make. 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 (well, aside from those questioning my motivation to vote for trackd00r). Contributions are low but that's to be expected in the first hours of the game. I feel that there's not enough information out there yet to make an opinion on alan.

@Miltonkram




Apologies for not addressing you directly. 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.


Regarding Mouldyjeb, I agree that he is confusing, however his filter is also quite short. His words definitely are not pro-town, but in my opinion they aren't inherently scummy either, it could just as easily be poor town play.



Now I've gone through a few people's filters, and only one person really sticks out at me: alan133

roflwaffle initiated pressure on him, and then loosened up after Crossfire and I argued in alan's defense. I did not find the case convincing before, but now alan's posted his defense, and now the case is a lot more stronger to me.

As a quick rehash of rofl's initial case, he argued that alan made posts with little controversy, that he wasn't interested or willing to apply pressure on anyone, that he does some bandwagoning.

All true, but possible for both town and scum play. However, with his defense posts, I feel that things are starting to add up. Looking even closer at the filter I feel I've caught some things that I missed before.



His initial statement is very verbose and is pro-actively defensive. He's countering arguments to his words before they even come up. He's even countering counter arguments to his words.

"...hoping for a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. [counter] Note I am merely listing the possibilities, I do not FoS anyone yet, [counter-counter] which can also mean I do not trust anyone yet".

He also likes to use FMPOV and IMO a lot, further stressing how his words are subjective.

It's very telling when someone is that self-conscious and defensive, because only mafia really have that motivation.


When called out by waffle for not having suspicions, he gets extremely agitated.





He spends a lot of words explaining his reasoning behind saying he doesn't have an FoS. He starts to really use red to emphasize his words, which he had used previously to point out inconsistencies and scummy lines, but not to add emphasis to his words.

Notice that he is spending a lot of effort defending himself and justifying his past words. I feel a townie would be less threatened by such accusations, and instead start trying to apply pressure and otherwise prove their towniness.

.

Following what he feels is an adequate self-defense, he goes on the offensive.





This is extremely extremely scummy to me. What he's saying here is essentially this: "If not giving throwing out suspicions is anti-town, then I will prove my towniness by throwing out suspicions.", followed by attacking the person who attacked him.

He finishes the post by saying





There is a mental disconnect here.

1. He feels throwing out suspicions is bad for town
2. He tries to prove his towniness by throwing out a suspicion at his attacker
3. He reinforces his belief that staying neutral is not bad town play

If he really was town and he really believed that his way of playing was optimal, why would he have the need to go completely against his beliefs to prove his towniness?

In his next post, the same trend continues.

He spends time justifying his red text:





but the interesting thing is.. if it was so easy for him to build a case against waffles, why didn't he? Of course, because he didn't have any. He was simply defending via attacking.

And then there's the whole weird analysis that he does where he analyses my case and waffle's case, comes to the conclusion that:

1. waffles could be either scum or town (???)
2. somehow finds me slightly scummy even though he previously thought that my case was based on a misunderstanding (and went to extra lengths to state that he did not FOS anyone yet),
3. Some sort of mafia conspiracy theory out of left field what??
4. Which he backs off saying 'I think I might have read too much into it."

So, he finally makes analyses on people, but only the two most active and controversial ones, and doesn't come to any solid conclusions. He makes a really weird statement regarding mafia alterior motives that doesn't make any sense coming from a town's perspective, but comes naturally to a mafia who is trying to spin scum motivations on townies.

Summary

1. He's pro-actively defensive
2. Justifies his own actions instead of trying to make pro-town actions
3. Defensive Aggression
4. Inconsistency regarding a neutral/suspicion-throwing playstyle
5. Attacks the two most controversial posters with a questionable theory for townies to think of that he just kind of throws out there.
6. Still no solid reads, analysis or suspicions despite (kind of??) conceding that not throwing out suspicions is anti-town.



##vote alan133

---snip
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.

---snip
I'm confused why sciberbia would be so suspicious of me. Perhaps its bias from the previous game when I was mafia, but I don't feel I've been playing in a scummy way.

His points on my defense is basically that I was being non-transparent. Another way to look at it is I used the wrong wording and I'm more concerned about scumhunting than pursuing and discussing moot topics. In any case, my defense is what it is.

The part about looking bold is just WIFOM and not very helpful at this point.

LET THE GALLOWS RUN RED!!!!! :OOOOO

..I've been feeling jittery all day. It's seriously more effective than any amount of caffiene >_<;

Yeah. Welcome to bizarro bus world. You're here already you just don't know it yet

Both roflwaffle and heavonearth do not strike me as that sophisticated of players. Thus, I don't think that there was any plan for cooperation from the start between the two dead scum and our last remaining one.

The most likely scenario is that Scum #3 is a strong player, who decided that it would be in his best interest to bus both of his teammates early to gain extreme townie cred. This strategy worked well in XV with Xatalos taking the win, although he did make some slips early on that could have exposed him if people had looked into him more in depth. Of course, an early bus or even double bus is so risky for mafia that it seems really unlikely, but that is the situation we are in now.

It doesn't matter if you believe me now. When I flip, you can come back to these words and think carefully.

---

The most important lesson to be learned in mafia XV was that the pattern of night kills, and townie's impressions of night kills, was very important to discovering that Xatalos was the last mafia.

If player X was heavily tunneling player Y, and player X gets shot, does that mean player Y was scum? or maybe thats just what scum wants you to think. The town attitude in XV was that decyphering the meaning behind night kills was so WIFOMy that it wasn't worth doing. This lead to mafia being able to shoot the strongest player every night without fear of having the night shot analysed. At the very end, Xatalos shot the one person who was against him, thus securing a win because he knew the other two remaining players wouldn't analyse the shot and realize that the shot only made sense if he made it, not the #1 suspect at the time.

We saw austinmcc get shot N1. Someone will get shot N2. These shots have meaning, and just because it's WIFOMy doesn't mean its not worth discussing.

If the last remaining mafia was bold enough to start the game with a double bus, they most likely won't slip, and they might not even have any suspicious behaviour if they are good enough. The last remaining source of information is the pattern of NK's. Don't forget that.