Newbie Mini Mafia XIX

On June 27 2012 22:52 s0Lstice wrote:
now now gentlemen there is plenty of marv for everyone. pass him around like a peace pipe.

On June 28 2012 22:29 Promethelax wrote:
And an offer I can't refuse? Does it involve a human sized hamster ball and a life of captivity?

On June 29 2012 00:48 Fencer710 wrote:
##Vote TheToast, the BreadLord

You realize TheToast is the BreadLord, right?

On June 29 2012 02:39 andrewlt wrote:


10 pages of off-topic for every 1 page scumhunting?

On June 29 2012 07:05 Anacletus wrote:


Bah, you always know how to hit me where it hurts! I regrettably admit to taking a rusted bike chain and strangling the sheriff. But if there's one thing that I didn't do, I didn't shoot the god damn deputy.

On June 29 2012 07:17 Myles wrote:

Not really defending you, just wondering why he's taking such a lead when we have nothing to go on. Starting a witch hunt is only going to get innocent people killed me thinks. Also, when did you suggest we start hunting?

On June 29 2012 10:05 Intact wrote:


Now this isn't going anywhere..

On June 29 2012 12:00 Anacletus wrote:


I'm not actively refusing to participate.

I just don't want to throw around accusations because I think that that will be aggressive and more like scum play. I think I'll wait for a few more people to post before I post any reads.

On June 29 2012 12:13 Anacletus wrote:


Yeah I know, I've played mafia before. It's just that refusing to participate is pretty serious and is mentioned in the rules.

On June 29 2012 12:17 Anacletus wrote:


From what I generally see in mafia, the town is the most active in posting when the game starts, while the mafia generally don't post and lurk a while. I've been posting a lot and I really think it's too early to start calling out scum.

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 30 2012 06:39 Hopeless1der wrote:


Argh...Thanks for derailing us hard ghost. It's time to get back to scumhunting now? and for future reference, the quoted post is usually seen as a complete waste of time and reason for suspicion.

On June 29 2012 18:22 Fencer710 wrote:
Sorry T_T. I was literally asleep during the day.

For better or for worse, my views are the same as Umlaut's. I can't really add anything. :\

On June 30 2012 09:30 Fencer710 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +EBWOP: At the beginning here, I mean to say that I forgot why Anacletus was called out for being scum while posting.

Also It's pretty easy to point out a newbie's mistakes as scum behaviour, I consistently start stopping 'scummy' behaviour, aka spamming and indecisiveness as you/I catch it.

On June 30 2012 10:48 Intact wrote:
In addition, should we lynch analectus and he turns put to be mafia, it would make it fairly easy to point out the other mafia. And if he turns out to be townie it would be very easy to confirm some townies.

On June 30 2012 23:03 Hopeless1der wrote:



I think Anacletus and Fender have had the scummiest play so far. However, I do not think that there is enough evidence that the [i]are[]/i] scum. However, I feel obliged to lynch someone, and Fender's death would be less hurtful to the town since Anacletus (was) posting somewhat relevant things to the thread. <--This is not a good reason to lynch someone I know, but its the best I can come up with under the circumstances for placing my initial vote.

As you've already changed your vote to ensure a lynch, it probably doesn't matter anymore, but I was going to do the same thing (Switch vote from Fender to Anacletus) closer to the deadline (unless Fender got jumped). My reason for not immediately voting Anacletus was that they're both looking scummy and if I hammered, it could very well have halted all discussion for the rest of the day until we lynched him.

On June 30 2012 23:19 Hopeless1der wrote:
Would you rather No-Lynch in a situation like this Jingle? I would not, but I can see the merits to both decisions.

On July 01 2012 00:08 Hopeless1der wrote:
Based on what I've seen, I am not convinced that either Anacletus or Fencer is scum. (I was calling him Fender for a while there, sorry) I don't have a full scum read on anyone. Thanks for evading the Yes or No question I asked though. I'm not trying to trap you here, its just that you seem of the opinion that we shouldn't be lynching anyone right now due to lack of sufficient scumtells

My point with the two players under suspicion is that I value the information from either lynch higher than the analysis of the lynched player or the lynched player's vote (Because they're targeting each other and not posting much analysis). I know town is down a player (potentially two) but the game is practically designed to mislynch day 1. I agree that our goal should be finding scum, not just getting information, but there is too little to go on so far other than ensuring someone gets lynched today due to bandwagoning.

On July 01 2012 00:53 Hopeless1der wrote:


You have been against yes/no play, I agree. You didn't really want to policy lynch to begin with. For the record I do not think your play is scummy. However, in order to vote for anyone you must come to the conclusion that it would be (or at least seems to be) beneficial for town. My problem with your answer is it assumes we will always be able to find scum, which right now I cannot. Too many bandwagons and lurkers. Therefore, my choices are to (semi-)knowingly go into either a mislynch or no-lynch situation.

I qualified my question with "in a situation like this", by which I meant relatively poor cases, only two real options for voting, and a good chance to mislynch. My stance is it is better to mislynch for information than to no-lynch for an extra vote tomorrow. The votes that do get made are based off of better analysis due to having more information available. There is also the chance that we are lucky enough to pull scum.

On June 29 2012 07:17 Hopeless1der wrote:
Let's suppose many people neglect to post...if we can't get a decent case going, are we cool to lynch lurkers?
Everyone on board?

On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote:
Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying



Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere...

On July 01 2012 02:09 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
Myles: You're right to a certain extent. I was looking at your and Monk's contributions specifically because you were the only two not to have cast a vote. However, just because two players have the same post count doesn't mean they're making the same contribution. The vast majority of your posts so far have been filler that haven't added in any meaningful way to the conversation. For the record, I don't have a scummy read on you, I just feel like you could be contributing more with your posting.

JH: Less nuttiness, and more posts like that, please! I for one am persuaded. I still have a scummy read on Anacletus, but actively arguing in favor of a mislynch over no lynch at all is far scummier play than he's demonstrated so far.

##Unvote Anacletus
##Vote Hopeless1der

My read on Anacletus isn't changed at this point, though; I still think he's got a good chance of flipping scum. I'm a bit concerned that there might be too many players who will be inactive between now and the lynch, in which case I'll be switching my vote back to Anacletus to prevent a no-lynch.

On July 01 2012 02:21 Hopeless1der wrote:
The biggest scumtell I've had so far is the whole mislynch vs no lynch. To that I submit the following:

WORST CASE SCENARIO
No Lynch Day1
+ Show Spoiler +

(Mis)Lynch Day1
+ Show Spoiler +

Conclusion: Mislynch Bad. No Lynch Worse.




WTF YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS WHY AM I DEFENDING MYSELF TO YOU??

On July 01 2012 06:27 AmericanUmlaut wrote:

I think we should save discussion for morning. Posting our thoughts during the night just gives the PBUs more information to consider when picking their night hit.

On July 01 2012 08:03 Promethelax wrote:


I'll go back and look at it, it isn't fair to you to call it our case though. I noticed and mentioned the stupid play, you made a real case.

I would urge you to go back and re-read my case on Fencer, I think it is even stronger now that Anacletus has flipped green.

I'll post my thoughts about the wonder when I have re-read your case and his filter.

On July 01 2012 08:07 Myles wrote:
^

Because of what this guy wrote.

On July 01 2012 08:16 Myles wrote:
Well then I guess I'll post my thoughts.

First I think we should look at bandwagoners. I’m sure I’m under suspicion, or more so than before since I got the eye from some posters, for being part of the lynching, but I hope I explained my position enough that I get some BotD. A number of other people barely explained themselves at all before voting.

Blind-rawr hopped on the bandwagon without much discussion and voted pretty early, but his subsequent posts explained his position.
Intact did pretty much the same, just with a fewer number of posts.
Fencer is tied at the top for most suspicions now imo. His overall behavior, combined with his hopping on the bandwagon really early, hopping off when he got some attention, then hopping back on seems really scummy.
BobTheLob is right there with him. Lurker who used the same arguments as Fencer, hopped on the bandwagon with no reasoning, and the few posts he has made contributed nothing.

The others who voted for Anacletus seem like they had a reasonable position. And while I can’t say we know for sure that those who didn’t vote for him are town, I think it’s really likely because the FoS went so quickly on Anacletus . He didn’t do much to convince us of his innocence, so if they were PBUs it’d be some serious metagaming to start backing off and potentially drawing attention when there was so much support.

On July 01 2012 08:27 Myles wrote:

I think the scum would keep on Anecletus to not draw attention to themselves and keep the heat on him. I would agree that is possible one didn't vote for him, I just don't just have a heavy scum read on any of you.

I talked about your read of Hopeless when AmericanUmlaut asked me about it, and AmericanUmlaut suggested we not post at night and I thought his reasoning was valid.

On July 01 2012 04:05 Myles wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I was suspicious of JH at first because of the seemingly chaotic way he accusing people deciding policy, but I agree now that it was just to get people talking so we could go somewhere rather than seriously accusing people.

Hopeless seems like he's trying to make the best decision with the information we have. I agree that lynching just for information is bad if we have nothing else to go on, but given that we have a couple suspects, we should definitely be lynching one of them since relying on scum to slip up and make it obvious seems very unlikely at this point.

On July 01 2012 08:44 Myles wrote:
Well, you're reasoning of hopeless being suspicious because his voting someone else after Anacletus was all but secured is something I don't agree with. I don't think that's much to go one because Fencer revealed himself to be pretty scummy with his spammy offtopic posts and haphazard voting. I mean, you basically did the same thing by putting an early FoS on Anacletus then changing to focus once other people jumped in. I don't think something like that is very damning.

On July 01 2012 09:42 BobTheLob wrote:


Yes I am. You to are the most active right now and as I said, we're ALL following what you guys are doing. I didn't say you were scum I said that it'd odd that you two right out of the gate are helping each other and building on what the other said.

On July 01 2012 10:12 Promethelax wrote:


Are you using a guide? I've been working based off of what I have read in other mafia threads, I did a bit of research before playing since I was scared as hell.

I don't really get what you mean about how we'd be a double lynch. I have trouble seeing why after I flipped green or you flipped green anyone would lynch the other one. I you flip red I guess I will look bad though, I guess I'll hope to hell that I'm right about you and that you are one of us.

On July 01 2012 10:18 Promethelax wrote:


oh, okay that makes a lot more sense. I don't like him but I'm still looking into him, maybe its awful town play? I'm not sure I'm still building the case. I also think I'll just re-link my Fencer case since he is still scummy.

Why do you think Bob chose to come out of the woodwork now? He posted that huge thing with no reads in it and a lot of words. I'd love your opinion.

On July 01 2012 13:46 Hopeless1der wrote:


You've lost me Promethelax. My statement pertained to No Lynch and Mislynch (intentional or otherwise). Are you saying No Lynch is preferable? Because I'm saying Mislynch is preferable. Oh wait, when you cast your vote:

+ Show Spoiler +

Your actions agree with my conclusion, whether you agree with the deduction itself or not.

My 'non-committal' posts (at least towards Anacletus) were in fact a good read by me to identify someone being bandwagoned for a weak case. I can't decide if you and JH tunneling me so far is actually scummy or not, but don't for one goddamn second think I don't know what I'm doing.

On July 10 2012 17:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
From the obs QT:


Killing JingleHell was a horrible mistake.