Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII

On June 21 2012 00:35 blubbdavid wrote:
JieXian is the new bluelightz

On June 21 2012 08:22 Probulous wrote:


Blubb is being mean. Bluelightz is a player who does his own thing and didn't bother to learn in his early mafia career. However he has since picked up his game and is doing much better now. He is also from Singapore so maybe that has something to do with what Blubb meant (similar region).

Mr JieXian, I would highly suggest reading the guides linked in the OP and contacting the coaches when you get your PM. There are some basic rules of mafia that really help in newbie games. Number one being, post. If you don't contribute, people will think you are scum. So post, even if you don't think you can add a lot just having a thread presence helps.

Good luck!

On June 21 2012 13:33 Probulous wrote:


Ok maybe Blubb was right. That sounds just like Bluelightz

On June 24 2012 03:07 Esspen wrote:

The answer is clear: do not sleep.
Sleep is overrated anyway...

On June 24 2012 11:50 BassInSpace wrote:


You're not the only one, I'm at +10 GMT.

On June 24 2012 13:29 Keirathi wrote:
A friend of mine wrote a very very comprehensive mafia bot a few years ago, and we used it to play ~10,000 games back in the day.

On June 25 2012 10:16 Hopeless1der wrote:
No more sheriff...well ain't that something special. What in the Sam Hill do we do now? Surely someone knows who else could be behind these treacherous murders.

I say we root these varmints out and string em right up in the middle of town, just like that VisceraEyes.
Now to do this we're gonna need a couple of...'Rules'.

I will say that I am a firm believer in the truth. Anyone caught in a lie deserves to die! Who's with me?

This game will follow a 24 hour night/48 hour day cycle.

So night. I will be less active in the following days (until night 3) for aforementioned reasons.

On June 25 2012 21:49 Vivax wrote:


Wat

You crazy?

On June 25 2012 23:29 BassInSpace wrote:Also JieXian, I don't agree with your use of pre-game posts as part of your case against release (in regards to your "create escape route" point. I think analysis of posts should start when the game actually starts.

On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote:
Take my "game plan" for what you will. I can't decide how you think.

If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22

shit I just noticed that this wasn't what i thought it was. This actually means that we have 2 real days to vote right?

On June 26 2012 02:43 Esspen wrote:


To be quite honest, just to see reactions of people. And maybe catch some scummy behaviour.
Btw I must say that Release seems to be the scum as all reacted to my post it the form of "wtf? please explain" etc. wanting some explanation, yet Release is the only one actually attacking.

On June 26 2012 03:20 JieXian wrote:


I admit my analysis was a long shot but holy shit does it seem to fit... It does assume that Release had both smart planning and was lucky enough to be a mafia though.

However I totally disagree that the game actually starts during the game. Flash and iloveoov used interviews to win man.

On June 26 2012 07:15 Keirathi wrote:


This is the most confusing sentence in this thread, so maybe *YOU'RE* the mafia.

In all seriousness though, i feel like you are putting yourself in the limelight a bit too much on day1 for oyut o be mafia, unless you're just an idiot, which I assume isn't the case.

As far as the whole "lynching the blues" comment by Esspen, really boggling. I can't even see how this would create good discussion; 1) you're serious, in which case WORST MAFIA EVER or 2) you're making a joke, people call you out, you say you're joking, people still suspect your motives but move on. I dont feel like anything that has come out of that statement has been useful towards finding whoever the mafia is, so that just makes it more suspicious/boggling.

Now: lynch the lurkers. I've played around tis strategy many many times, and while it doesn't always work, it does have some key benefits: 1) a lot of mafia (especially inexperienced ones) are going to try to keep a low profile for a long as they can and 2) people who arent giving input, well, aren't giving input or opinions for others to base anything on, therefor aren't helping town to win. The chance of mafia nightkilling lurkers is exceptionally low, as well, because 1) thats one more person to cast suspicion on, and 2) the lurker isnt going to casting any suspicion on them.

So thats my 2cents. Lynch All Lurkers is probably our best plan of action.

On June 26 2012 15:06 BassInSpace wrote:
Hopeless1der, you say that policy lynching should be our last resort, but then you post this?



You have a FOS on esspen, who you already said you find suspicious for trying to bring attention back to release, but then you ask which of our "prime candidates" out of those 3 we should lynch? If policy lynching really is the last resort, should you not be pressuring esspen more, or waiting closer to the voting deadline when there has been more activity before you start wanting to lynch lurkers (by my count there are still 22 hours until the deadline)? That is the whole point of a last resort. I really don't like how much attention you were putting on voting for lurkers before BiosC responded to you. I'm not sure if you'll get to see this and respond any time soon because of time zones, but I will hold off putting my vote on you until I go to bed just in case you manage to post before then.

As for esspen, I really don't know. That really is just way too obvious a move for mafia to make as others have said, but I am getting a stronger read from hopeless1der.

On June 26 2012 15:39 Release wrote:

If you're still stuck one this, i don't know what to say...

"They may be lynching lurkers"
I never said. I said go for scum. I even said lynchscum>lynchliars>lynchnottruth. I said that lurkers will always take a position lower than scum on priority list. Words in my mouth.

Yeah, i caused commotion. We weren't exactly making a lot of progress. I think commotion>banter because at least we get some honest opinions in there. Maybe even a scumslip if someone gets too emotional...

Night

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 27 2012 11:55 Release wrote:
I think the activity level in this game is quite shit.

On June 27 2012 15:21 Release wrote:
There's been extremely low activity since death post. Considering i am putting like 1 hour a day into this game while having a longer filter than most, this is quite shit.

On June 27 2012 17:14 BassInSpace wrote:
Jiexian, miltonkram will be replacing one of aegonc or keirathi, who did not vote at all, if that's what you're unsure about. What exactly is holding you back from voting from the remaining lurkers (you do say you really feel like lynching lurkers) and sticking to release? What do you mean by release "doing his thing". He's right, activity isn't good in this game at all, with 2 players being modkilled/replaced already, and a bunch of others posting very little. I didn't like your original case against release; I think it's gotten even worse now.

Esspen:





What was that? I gave you the benefit of doubt at first, but I'm gonna be looking at you very closely again.

On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote:
Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.

If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.

Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum.
Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.

On June 27 2012 23:47 Release wrote:

So myself, rofles, and bio? (for clarification)

I think the self-pity attitude is silly. Strong cases make you the target for scum.

gtg.

On June 29 2012 00:19 BassInSpace wrote:
You can't speculate on night kills like this. I could just as easily say mafia killed the people who WERE suspecting them openly because they figure people would never think they'd do something that obvious.

On June 27 2012 10:45 Release wrote (in reply to biosc):
That's plausible, and honestly, i can't disagree with Hope's wishy-washy play.

But i am keeping my eye on you.

On June 29 2012 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Well well, I want to hear other opinions regarding me before I post my defense. I don't feel threatened by a lynch as of now, and there are still too many lurkers.

On June 28 2012 14:53 JieXian wrote:
Right now Esspen is both scummy and lurking.

Vivax is being confusing

Bio stops lurking but his D1 behavior is weird

NrGmonk has the BOTD for being busy as TLStaff

JingleHell had the BOTD from me since roflwaffle was replaced for being busy

Keraithi is next on my list after Esspen for lurking, unless he's replaced and I have to give him the BOTD

Esspen looks like a good lynch imo - fits both criterias for it.

On June 25 2012 21:47 Vivax wrote:
What we want is: People saying yes/no to certain policies AND BEING SURE OF THEMSELVES, then giving reasons for their attitude.

On June 29 2012 01:21 Vivax wrote:


JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement?

On June 29 2012 03:21 Esspen wrote:

Both, I'm certain for you 98% and Vivax 102% (ok that means Vivax).

And this defence of eachother just makes me think you are both scums.

In case Vivax (i know i said i believe both BioSC and Vivax are scums, but more people seem to dislike Vivax) won't seem to get lynched this day I have two propositions:
1: you lynch me and if I turn out to be townie, you lynch Vivax
2: you lynch Vivax and if he turns out to be townie, you lynch me

On June 29 2012 10:00 Miltonkram wrote:
Let's take a look at what dNa just said:

Not good reasoning. We're here to lynch scum, not confusing/suboptimal players. dNa's reasoning reeks of scumminess. I think we just found our last scum guys. My plan is we lynch Vivax today, BioSC tomorrow, and dNa the next, though I really don't care about the order. Any takers?

Another scummy point for Vivax:
- He's been pretty content to sit back and just pressure lurkers. This is another deviation from his town play in NMM XV. I'd imagine a town Vivax would put a bit more effort into cases against active players. Pushing for a lurker lynch is a really non-confrontational move. Tralalala, obvious scum is obvious.

Since Esspen has come under heavy fire, here's a town point in his favor.

He's either making a ballsy scum move, or this is extremely pro-town. Offering to take the lynch in order to confirm that your reads are made in good faith isn't a move most scum would think of IMO. If the assumptions I've made on our scumteam are wrong, then I'll rethink taking Esspen up on his offer. I've got to take a rather long trip, my case on BioSC will have to wait for a little while.

I'm feeling pretty good about this game

On June 29 2012 22:54 BassInSpace wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

This is another take regarding esspen that I had considered earlier. That nagging feeling that in fact esspen is town and we're all being played by mafia. However, JieXian, I disagree with you holding Miltonkram's confidence against him. Him saying that he feels "pretty good about the game" is a rather trivial remark. I think we both agree that his soft defense of esspen may warrant further discussion though, but that is for another day I think.

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 29 2012 23:11 BassInSpace wrote:
Damn it, I suspected you were the DT. Your playstyle kind of reminded me of my own when I played DT in my first game, but I couldn't be sure. Because of this, I'm willing to take the chance and take you on your word that you are in fact the DT. I'm not too sure about your decision to roleclaim, since I don't think your lynch is set in stone and you could've breadcrumbed as insurance, but I understand it's hard given that 2 of the votes on you were in different time zones and may not have been changed.

## Vote JingleHell

On June 29 2012 23:19 JieXian wrote:


I won't call that a breadcrumb. Going to look into the Jinglehell claim.

On June 29 2012 23:28 BassInSpace wrote:
I don't know what you don't understand, but let me take a stab at guessing. I'm saying it might have been preferable for him to breadcrumb INSTEAD of straight out roleclaiming, on the chance that he doesn't get lynched, so that our DT stays hidden.

On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote:
Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned.

If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them.

Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum.
Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives.

On June 27 2012 09:02 Vivax wrote:
Oh god my vote didn't get through in time -.-

On June 30 2012 00:19 BassInSpace wrote:
The DT can only make checks at night. That was still during day 1.

On June 29 2012 23:28 Esspen wrote:
There isl no chance he's detective, I'm ready to bet on my kidney. Why would he be accusing all the people he accused if he could focus on the one he knew to be the scum and make a good case on him. This seems like a very sad fake roleclaim.

On June 30 2012 09:02 Blazinghand wrote:
"Wait!" he shouted, "I'm the cop!" but they did not listen.

"Wait," he shouted, "I'm a VT!" but it was far too late.

Vivax the Vanilla Townie has been put to death!

On July 01 2012 02:32 Keirathi wrote:
Because with 8 players left, if we mislynch, the game is over, barring a doc save (which we don't even know if we have a doc).

8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over.

If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8.

On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote:
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.

So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?

And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.

And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.

On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote:
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.

So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?

And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.

And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.

On July 01 2012 13:36 Keirathi wrote:


I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize.

Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds.

It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation,

On July 02 2012 02:18 Keirathi wrote:
The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen.
Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him?

On July 02 2012 03:07 Keirathi wrote:
I said I didnt think we could put stock into it

On July 02 2012 12:40 Keirathi wrote:



No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete.

Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not.

Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed.

Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town?




Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy.

On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote:


We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information.

I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.

If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for.

On July 03 2012 00:06 Keirathi wrote:
No. No, no, no to every single one of your points.



How do you know we won't have any concrete information?

Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town.

Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments.

I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow.

That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal.





There are definitely more solid cases that can be made.

Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand.

That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it.

On July 03 2012 11:05 kitaman27 wrote:
Keirathi
Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.

On July 03 2012 13:54 hegeo wrote:


Well, I bet my kidney twice that Esspen is town in the obs QT Otherwise, as others stated before, there was not enough questioning each other to get a clear read for me, only Bio was an early scum read for most observers.

I'm wondering: JieXian announces a big post in N2, doesn't deliver and nobody cares??

On July 03 2012 14:21 Keirathi wrote:


As far as D2, I was right to trust my gut. Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.

D3 is a whole other story. I honestly wasnt aware that even if we had 5 no-lynch votes, and 3 votes on someone, that there would be a lynch instead of a no-lynch because I've never played in a game like this. No one ever made that argument, and when I asked for no-lynch clarification, it wasn't mentioned. That would have made it a completely different ball game, and a no-lynch could never work in that circumstance.

I could keep arguing my point about it working, because I know for a fact it does work, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.

On July 03 2012 15:29 Release wrote:
The only confirmed i had was Bio scum, Bass town. Everyone else, to my mind, was neutral.

On July 04 2012 09:15 kitaman27 wrote:
Postgame part two
Another thing I happened to pick up on while going through each of your filters was signs of post lynch guilt. While nobody is likely to pick up on it, there were quite a lot of GG's towards players you pushed hard to get lynched .

On July 04 2012 18:47 Blazinghand wrote:
If you vote to lynch a player and he flips town clearly it wasn't a gg

And your reasons should be as good post flip as they were pre flip. Don't apologize for sound logic.

...................................


Scummiest townie EVER >_>

On July 04 2012 21:05 marvellosity wrote:


I told you about this in QT