Newbie Mini Mafia XXVII - Page 8

On September 19 2012 07:35 Atreides- wrote:
@ KillingTime and Sharrant: point taken on the FOS thing.

I'm not sure what to make of debears. Trying to establish thrawn as town is bad play, whether he's town or mafia himself. Right now I'm leaning towards it being an illogical claim, rather than an attempt for mafia to blend in. The latter just seems too simple and obvious. I don't think there's enough to make a strong claim for debears being town/mafia yet. It's very possible that he's town, and mafia are sitting quietly and laughing.

SDM raised some good points, but I'm not convinced on Sharrant yet. Going to wait for him to post before I comment on that.

Also need some others to post!

On September 19 2012 11:55 Atreides- wrote:
In defense of Sharrant -

He's in a similar position to debears - bad decisions do not necessarily mean scum. Think about it - what could a mafia hope to gain by this? Getting a lynch is far too ambitious, and a role claim isn't worth getting so much attention to yourself.

Mafia wouldn't want to aggressively pursue targets, they want to passively follow the crowd. Sharrant rode hard on debears, and has shown that he's willing to use his vote freely. I think that trying to get a role claim is a bad idea (debears will claim vanilla town no matter what role he is, this tells us nothing) but I don't see what's scummy about that. He's actively scumhunting, and both of his ideas (kush being SK, pressuring on debears) are original.

Someone mentioned the possibility of debears+thrawn being masons, which is something I didn't think of. The bromance between the two is pretty apparent since the beginning. Both have said that they believe the other is town, and they've used FOS (against sonic) and vote (against Sharrant) in unison. Thoughts?

I don't see a strong case for both debears and Sharrant right now. I'd be more inclined to vote for KillingTime if anything.

On September 19 2012 19:27 Atreides- wrote:


This post is very striking. It's your second post, the first one being about the same topic. Kush's early comments have been discussed and are pretty irrelevant now. Your last paragraph asks a question which has been answered already, and doesn't contribute. I'm getting the vibe of someone who's posting only because he feels pressured to post.

On September 20 2012 06:41 Atreides- wrote:
Oh man, what an interesting situation. Some possible outcomes:

1) We decide to lynch Sharrant, he then outs the other mason. Pretty bad outcome as the mason will simply die.

2) Sharrant outs a mason, he confirms, and we lynch cubu or killing. At this point it's very unlikely for both Sharrant and his ally to be mafia, and more likely for both to be masons. Relatively strong outcome.

3) We lynch Sharrant without him revealing the mason. If he was bluffing and flips red, this is a huge win, but it's a stretch. If he flips mason, we're in trouble.

4) Sharrant doesn't reveal the mason and we lynch cubu or killing. This seems like rolling the dice, as we wouldn't have any idea if Sharrant is lying or not, and it's very possible for us to lynch a townie on top of that.

I'm leaning towards 2) as an option right now unless something changes.

From the description it sounds like masons come in pairs, and it'd be extremely unlikely for there to be more than 2 masons in any case. If I'm wrong on any of the game mechanics here please correct me.

I feel that both Killing and Stutters are slightly scummy/lurky but cubu sounds like a strong vote as well. I was hoping for him to post by now.

##unvote
##vote cubu

On September 20 2012 09:01 Atreides- wrote:
God damn this thread blew up fast. I would've went with a no lynch over Drazak but it doesn't matter now.

On September 20 2012 09:16 Atreides- wrote:


I wasn't around after my last post, and I mixed up the voting deadline by an hour (thought it would be an hour from now, my bad). Your last sentence is a pretty moot point since it'd look equally bad for me if he flipped red.

The instant bandwagon against him is pretty interesting, and it's obvious now that the mafia had a strong hand in it.

On September 20 2012 15:10 Atreides- wrote:
There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak. The consensus was "eh, he's kinda scummy, and kinda lurking, and he's kinda the best option, let's kill him and see what happens". The problem with choosing between killer and drazak is that, like I meant earlier, mafia has a lot of power here. If killer turns out to be mafia, his team can go for a drazak vote and the bandwagon easily follows because nobody has strong feelings one way or the other. The time constraint and confusion was really perfect for something like this.

So yeah, as a principle I'd support no-lynching (on day one only) versus doing a half-assed lynch on someone else.

On September 20 2012 17:25 Atreides- wrote:
Guess I'm in the hot seat for now.

Note that I voted for cubu before he was revealed as a mason, and before I knew about the no-lynch possibility. Cubu is also a different breed than killing+drazak. The latter two made some posts, and I hoped that in days 2 and beyond they would be more active. I looked at cubu's filter and his posts from last game, and he didn't do anything at all. He isn't a lurker, he's a non-player. Meaning that, even if he's lynched and turns out to be town, nothing of value was lost. Whereas if killing+drazak flip blue we lose some contribution.

On September 21 2012 11:01 Atreides- wrote:
I had meant to post this afternoon but internet went out.. posting from my phone for now.

After the post where I voted cubu I went to a school event with the intention of coming back an hour before lynch. I come back to find that lynch time is almost here and start skimming the recent posts. I knew it was too late to do analysis and impact the lynch in any way, and ended up posting that one liner.

If I was mafia and lurking the whole time, I would have posted a while earlier (or not at all), and I wouldve at least changed my vote ffs. I guess you could make the argument that I faked being afk to earn some "town cred" but that's a stretch because there's little to gain from that and there were so many easy plays available.

Now I see why my 2nd post after lynch was kinda bad mistake. It was hasty and based on the fact that drazak got so many votes so fast.

On September 22 2012 17:16 Atreides- wrote:
Just got finished with a Skyrim spree...some thoughts on thrawn -

1) Hopping on the bandwagon
Early in day 1 he votes Sharrant with this post:
Which occurs right after Sonic's long post in which he states why Sharrant is very scummy. Note that he doesn't address Sonic's post at all.

Previous to the post, thrawn was arguing with Sharrant and suspicious of him but hadn't passed judgement one way or another. After Sonic's post, and once Sharrant became the main topic of discussion, thrawn was very open to lynching him:
However I didn't think of anything at the time these posts were happening, because Sharrant was making some strange posts at the time, and more importantly the fact that thrawn was first to call out Sharrant.

Next, what I think is a huge slip, his vote on drazak:
Initially he believes that both killer and drazak are scummy lurkers and is willing to vote for either:
Sharrant votes drazak as a lurker policy lynch. Sonic votes based on the change in his meta and his bandwagon vote on Sharrant. Kush votes and admits to bandwagoning. Thrawn copycats Sonic's reasoning and votes drazak after kush. Drazak's post:
Thrawn's post:
Once the focus is on drazak, thrawn changes his opinion and believes drazak is the stronger vote. Now, what really stands out to me is this: drazak literally admitted to bandwagoning. In thrawn's recent post in the previous page, he says this:
+ Show Spoiler +
So kush isn't suspicious because mafia would never admit to bandwagon posting, but drazak was? This is a very big contradiction.

After the lynch sonic and debears called me out on my posts, and I get a FOS from sonic. Thrawn jumps in and mirrors the arguments already made against me. His only original argument against me, and one which he repeated in the last page: + Show Spoiler +
It's a very odd argument because I made it clear that the knowledge of no-lynch as an option changed my stance on voting. In the second post within the spoiler, thrawn says that I'm no longer suspicious and yet he still has that same point against me. When the focus shifted away from me, so did thrawn's suspicion.

Lastly, on to his posts about stutters, who is now the topic of discussion. I feel that everyone has the same opinion on stutters right now, he's a solid lynch candidate but that's mostly due to lurking. I can't make a read off of thrawn here.

2) Ineffectual posting This is more of a wishy washy argument but I get the feeling that thrawn isn't playing strong at all this game compared to what he's used to. I would expect better from one of the more experienced players here. Two examples would be his case against me, and this post:
I think that Remedy's post lacked explanation (which is usual for him...) but I don't see what's scummy about it. Your read that Remedy is scummy for providing reasons to sonic's death is opposite. If anything mafia would want to feign ignorance about his death, to make it seem like they had no part in it.

Possible reasons for this:
a) he's mafia, trying to make accusations and cases against people to seem town
b) self-preservation, although him being blue is slightly unlikely
c) coincidence? he's just having a bad game? I'm just way off base?

On September 23 2012 07:40 Atreides- wrote:
ugghhh

Stutters is a bad vote, right now I don't feel comfortable lynching him without him posting more. I think that his lurking is him genuinely being busy rather than intentional (due to his lurking last game. he once went 2-3 days without a post).

After my last post I would have felt strong about voting thrawn, I think I made a good case against him but it was pretty much swept under the rug. Seems like I'm alone here, and there's no chance of him getting votes. However at the very least I suggest looking into my post and his filter...being active doesn't make you town.

Dandel doesn't come off as scummy to me yet, and I posted earlier why I didn't buy the case against rethos. He's open to lynching debears, stutters, remedy, and possibly another lurker. Meaning if he's mafia it's less likely for these others to be mafia as well.

Remedy...I think he's a last resort lynch at best. I can't make any reads off him. His activity is in line with what he said his work schedule would be. His posts are too short, he votes without explanation, and his arguments don't make much sense...but I have trouble differentiating this between mafia and confused town.

On September 23 2012 08:22 Atreides- wrote:
Remedy isn't a clear case at all, he's a total crapshoot. I think it's just as likely he's a confused town instead of a mafia. I don't see how anyone can make a strong read off of what little he said. My case against thrawn is what I'd consider a strong case.

6 out of 11 people have voted for Remedy...so either all the town is convinced that he's mafia, or some of his bandwagon voters are mafia themselves.


I should have done this much earlier
##Vote: thrawn2112

The one advantage to lynching Remedy is that, even if he's town, we don't lose an important poster but we do gain good reads on the people who voted for him. In that way I prefer him over dandel.

On September 23 2012 10:20 Atreides- wrote:
does anyone still think thrawn is town?

I'll literally eat my keyboard if he avoids the lynch this time around

On September 24 2012 08:01 Atreides- wrote:

On jacob, arlier when pressure was on me, he sort of defended me rather than joining a bandwagon. So he gets small points for that. I looked at kush's case against him so far, will look into him myself next. I didn't actually know he existed until day 2...

On September 24 2012 19:31 Atreides- wrote:
Awesome, I'm not alone now. If kush and sparky vote then we should have majority.

One thing that disturbs me is that thrawn said he was roleblocked both nights. From a town perspective, this makes sense if mafia believes that thrawn is a blue. From a mafia perspective, this makes no sense. Why would a town roleblock thrawn night 1? At that time, he was basically the unscummiest player in the game. So if we assume thrawn is mafia, we have to assume that he's been lying about the roleblocks. (Basically same point kush made)

Another point is that, who would be his teammates? I looked at the interaction between him and jacob, and I can see those two easily being scumbuddies. Nobody else is an obvious fit into this though.

Those are just small reservations though, I think the case against him is overwhelming at this point.

##Vote: Thrawn2112

On September 21 2012 22:57 Dandel Ion wrote:
Also, some LOGIC about the roleblock and nightkill to start things off:

SDM probably roleblocked you.
In fact, IF you have been roleblocked, it was SDM.

Reasoning: It was redundant for him to roleblock one of the masons.
You all treat the masons as confirmed town, but they really are not. As long as none of them flip, there will remain some doubt.
And it could possibly surface at a very bad time for town. It would be incredibly stupid for scum to shoot one mason, and leave the other in the game. During Night 1, that is.

Now the thing is, scum got lucky and hit the jailkeeper, which means they could possibly kill Sharrant and Sharky during the next 2 nightphases.
If they did not hit the JK, they wouldn't be practiaclly able to whack either, because the JK could just camp the confirmed town. Sure, scum can then hit anyone else, but that's a long time to leave a confirmed townie running around. Might as well start shooting into the crowd right away. Which they did.

tl;dr: SDM was a smart man.
And scum is unfortunately not mentally handicapped.



Also, EVERY roleblock happening absolutely needs to be claimed.
I would think that should be a no-brainer for townies, but I want to say it.
If there's anyone else that got roleblocked during the night, please claim too.

On September 22 2012 00:30 Dandel Ion wrote:
Ah, so Sharrant got JK'd.
Yes, that MUST have been SDM. Scum RB'd thrawn then.

Too bad I already gave SDM credit for not JK'ing Sharrant (or Sharky), now it turns out he did :/

On September 22 2012 00:36 Dandel Ion wrote:

It would make zero sense for a town RB (RB doesn't protect from nighthits) to block thrawn of all people.

On September 22 2012 01:10 Dandel Ion wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not done with reading the thread and respective filters

Right now, I have deep suspicions of Remedy. No sure if they will stand, but I think they may.

I'd also be down for lynching Stutters, Killing or Atreides, but all of them are mostly policy about lurking/non-conributing, and less about actual scumreads.
I do think, however, that getting rid of lurkers one way or the other is absolutely necessary looking towards MYLO/LYLO. If there's only 1 or 2 lurkers, that could be easily solved with a vig shot, but we have 3 (4 counting the late rethos), and possibly no Vig at all. Which sucks.

I need to look more into debears, so I'd like to withhold judgement for now, but I'll bring him up if I see something suspicious.

Sorry to be "that guy", but I'll come back to this later.

Because he's being SUPER useless while being "confirmed" town. And that makes me mad. Cause if he keeps that up when Sharrant gets shot (and Sharrant WILL get shot soon, since he's the only mason that actually does ANYTHING), it ain't gonna be pretty.

On September 22 2012 20:09 Dandel Ion wrote:
Why is everyone* so focused on SK?
It's not even sure there is one (in fact, it's more likely there is not), and even if there is, finding him is almost the same as scumhunting, he just has no teammates to either give him away or protect him.
You can worry about the SK when people keep dying and you already got 2 scum, but the way this game is going, you're not gonna have even a single scum anytime soon.

Pls go back to looking for scum, instead of speculating about SK.
Thx.

*slight exaggeration

On September 23 2012 00:24 Dandel Ion wrote:

What? lol
Are you trying to make this personal?
If so, you're not doing a good job of it.

I got suspicious of you when I saw how distracting and disruptive you were in the beginning, without contributing. That was before you made your weird posts where you clearly didn't (want to) understand what was actually going on.

Were you trying to hit a nerve? Cause you didn't. Maybe you're frustrated because of that now?

And "shitty" and "no-content" is not pro-town, no matter what you tell yourself.

On September 23 2012 00:52 Dandel Ion wrote:
Eh, if that's going to be the wagon, so be it.

##unvote
##vote stutters

On September 23 2012 02:12 Dandel Ion wrote:
wtf
I've said multiple times that I was willing to lynch Stutters too, what more do you need?

I NEVER, even remotely called for a vig shot on anyone.
The ONLY thing I said was that it's a valid strategy for lurkers to be dispatched by Vigs.
I even said, in the same post, that it doesn't apply to this particular game, because everyone and their mother lurks here.

On September 23 2012 06:39 Dandel Ion wrote:
Hm, Ninja'd

Well, I think Remedy is scum.
I even made a case on him, so pls no hate for voteswitching, kk?

##unvote
##vote Remedy

On September 23 2012 06:45 Dandel Ion wrote:
Why do you think you NEED an argument?

Interesting wording you have there.

On September 23 2012 07:45 Dandel Ion wrote:

So thrawn is the only one you want to lynch...
Come on, there are three scum in the game. Sit down and share some reads with your brothels brothers.