Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII

On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote:
To further clarify my response to Release:

I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.

Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire.

On June 26 2012 10:47 Hopeless1der wrote:
Very well dNa, that rules our NrGmonk.

BioSc vs AegonC

Im inclined towards BioSc because he has more useless posts, whereas Aegon could just be super inactive

On June 26 2012 12:55 Hopeless1der wrote:
##VOTE BioSC

Who says I cannot maintain multiple policies. Not enough has been said for me to conclude that anyone has been dishonest. I do not agree with No-Lynch, especially in the early game.
Are you not a lurker BioSC? In what way...what have you done that suggests otherwise?

(p.s. I know I have to vote in the Vote Thread thread for it to count)

On June 27 2012 04:43 Hopeless1der wrote:
Even after I pressured BioSC, he responded with an OMGUS and to me still has not contributed to any other discussions. Instead he has been trying to counter-case me. He did comment on Aegon lurking but never followed up.
His actions are not very committed to any stance except escaping from under my thumb. Things are said, but they are of very little consequence.

As for other lurkers, NrGmonk has let us know he is very busy. We've yet to hear from AegonC. Both of them have not really contributed to town. But BioSC has had plenty of posts and opportunities to chime in and support discussions and has not done so. Maybe he needs more time? Maybe I should let up? Who knows, but his actions paint him scum on my canvas and so I voted for him.

On June 27 2012 04:55 Hopeless1der wrote:
My vote against BioSC boils down to:
+ Show Spoiler +

On June 27 2012 06:32 Hopeless1der wrote:


First off, those are examples, not an exhaustive list of what constitutes active lurking. Also:
+ Show Spoiler +


Secondly:
Posts made only of taunts (this ones a stretch, and one of the last posts hes made but still...implies I'm stupid.)
+ Show Spoiler +

Excuses for not posting:
+ Show Spoiler +

Incoherent Gibberish:
+ Show Spoiler +
Bland Agreement:
+ Show Spoiler +


Last thing:
+ Show Spoiler +
3 hours left to deadline at time of post. Which leaves you about an hour and a half for you to make some reads and allow people time to review in order to decide who to vote for. That's some serious scum maneuvering right there.

If people are unsure of whether to vote BioSC and are in a tossup between a couple of choices, I'd propose temp-voting BioSC until he at the very least provides the reads he has kind of said he'd be willing to do...you know, if that's what we really want

On June 27 2012 08:04 NrGmonk wrote:
##Vote Keirathi
Rather random vote that won't affect anything, because I don't expect Keirathi to get enough votes to get lynched.

On June 27 2012 08:14 Esspen wrote:


There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him.

On June 27 2012 08:15 NrGmonk wrote:

Can you tell me why, because I honestly don't know. Is it scummy because it's asshole-ish or because it makes me seem like mafia? I honestly haven't paid enough attention to the discussion to make an informed vote, so I'd rather make a vote that essentially won't count rather than adversely affect the game. I would vote for myself, but according to the rules, it says I have to try to win.

On June 27 2012 08:39 Vivax wrote:
I don't understand town atm.

We had policy lynch discussion just at the beginning of the game where the general consensus seemed to be lynch all lurkers.

I have yet to see one guy who says that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells.

And yet there are people voting for all sorts of people except for AegonC, the biggest lurker (looks like there's gonna be lots to be replaced tho).

Did I miss any decisive scumtells out there?

On June 27 2012 08:40 Vivax wrote:
EBWOP: I have yet to see one guy who didn't say that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells.

On June 29 2012 01:50 Keirathi wrote:
Sorry for my inactivity. Random bad time with tons of extra work, and a friend came in from out of town for a few days. I'll try to catch up tonight and give some input.

On June 29 2012 08:17 Vivax wrote:
There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2.

If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it.

On June 29 2012 01:50 Keirathi wrote:
Sorry for my inactivity. Random bad time with tons of extra work, and a friend came in from out of town for a few days. I'll try to catch up tonight and give some input.

On June 29 2012 22:56 Vivax wrote:
Well, read the secret then, I don't even have to play with unrevealed cards cause I am going to die anyway:

+ Show Spoiler +

Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me.

It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me.

On June 30 2012 00:44 Vivax wrote:
Lol Bio, you would rather lynch someone who claimed DT for information instead of the guy he's accusing?

You don't understand.
If you lynch the guy I'm accusing, you know if I spoke the truth and you still have the DT.

If you lynch the DT, you know the guy he accused is scum, but you lost the DT.

Why do you choose the worse option? Both give the same information, but one kills a blue role.

On June 30 2012 01:18 Keirathi wrote:
So after catching up in the thread, 2 things stick out:

Why would you want to vote me if you're detective and have proof that someone is scum?

and 2, despite that, I actually feel inclined to trust the detective claim. There's really not much point tot he claim at that point if you're getting bandwagoned, because if you're wrong about the scum, then you just get lynched the next day, which doesn't really help the mafia out very much.

Although, you *COULD* be claiming det and giving up a teamate to appear clean for a while until someone else claims det and we are forced to decide who's lying.

On June 30 2012 01:31 Keirathi wrote:
Also re BioSC:

That's the worst logic I've ever heard. You kill the target the DT claimed as scum, NOT THE DT HIMSELF.

That would make no sense at all. Why would you not want more of the DT's info, assuming he is actually the DT?

Here's the possible ways this can play out:

1) We lynch Vivax. He flips DT, so we lynch Jester tomorrow and have 1 mafia down.

2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down.

3) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Mafia compatriats kills Vivax tonight. 1 mafia down.

4) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Mafia targets someone else. 1 Mafia down, mild suspicion on Vivax still, at least 1 more night of "investigations".

5) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Doc save on Vivax. 1 mafia down, and another night of confirmed investigations.

6) We lynch Jester, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.


It's pretty easy to see that 4 is our BEST CASE SCENARIO.

On June 30 2012 02:04 Keirathi wrote:


What!?

Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are.

Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3.

The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever.

On June 30 2012 02:10 Keirathi wrote:


2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down.

6) We lynch Jingle, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow.

Where did I leave out scenarios where Vivax isn't DT? Thats what those look like to me.

On June 29 2012 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Also, to remind you of the information gained from lynching one of you:



And don't forget that my main target is Keirathi cause of his mafiavibes. You're putting words into my mouth saying that I prefer a policy lynch to a scumminess lynch, Jingle. The post I'm quoting myself from proves it, too.

On June 28 2012 20:45 Vivax wrote:
Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player.

But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now.

On June 30 2012 02:40 Keirathi wrote:


So you would rather lose a blue role than keep one? You make no sense and I'm done arguing with you. If other people believe that garbage, then town is doomed and there's very little point to any discussion.

On June 30 2012 02:46 Vivax wrote:

If you kill me, you can hide saying you had no reason to believe I might be DT.

On June 30 2012 03:16 Keirathi wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that its better for the town if Jingle flips town than it is for Vivax to flip DT.

Thats really all it comes down to. Simple game mechanics.

On June 30 2012 06:34 Miltonkram wrote:
You guys, Vivax's DT claim is one of the scummiest DT claims I've ever seen. He pushes for a Keirathi lynch even when he has a red check on JingleHell. He is scum, and he is obvious scum. If we don't lynch him, it will be one of the worst town plays I've ever seen. He has slipped and it's been obvious. Please, please, please lynch this guy.

On June 30 2012 06:38 NrGmonk wrote:
I agree that Vivax seems quite fishy, but your sudden switch of votes seems even more fishy to me. If you can convince me of a reason you switched voting within the span of one hour, I definitely reconsider my vote.

On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote:
I agree with all of you!