Newbie Mini Mafia XXVII

On September 14 2012 06:12 kushm4sta wrote:
thrawn where are you Africa or some shit ?

On September 18 2012 11:18 kushm4sta wrote:


Terrible idea? Since we prob have liek 3 different time zones.
Biggest lurker gets lynched is a better plan but still not that great.
A lot of noobs are pretty lost about what to do day 1.

Here are my suggestions for discussion topics:
1 discuss lurker policy. I know you are bored with it or whatever, thrawn, but for peopel to say how they feel about lurkers and if they want to lynch them or let them lurk (both are viable strategies imo) gives us a baseline for FOSing people that go back on their lurker policy.
Like what if a scum says lynch all lurkers, then one of the scumbuddies turns out to be the biggest lurker. That puts him in a bad position that he could avoid without lurker policy discussion.

On September 18 2012 11:18 kushm4sta wrote:2 I think we should discuss a plan for how to spend time.
Here is my proposed plan: Freely making cases against anyone you think is scum in the first 24 hours of the day, then focusing on a couple of the biggest bandwagons in the second 24 hours.
Do you like this plan or do you have a better one? I would a more systematic scumhunt this game though.

On September 18 2012 11:18 kushm4sta wrote:3 Give an introduction of yourself. How experienced are you? Are you a total noob or have you obsed some games?
Very important IMO is will you be around for lynch time? That's 9 pm normal time btw if you are new. How active do you plan on being. Honestly I think once a day is okay IF your posts are good.

On September 18 2012 11:18 kushm4sta wrote:An intro for myself is coming.

On September 18 2012 12:08 kushm4sta wrote:
remedy getting a good scum read d1 is impossible.

On September 18 2012 12:25 RemedySC wrote:

We have to start somewhere, so I'll post a theory.



Kushm4sta, you say that it gives scum safe people to accuse, and I agree with that point, but your comment in your policy looks like it would fit that point. It would be pretty safe for a mafia if they were able to convince people to lynch lurkers.

On September 18 2012 12:25 RemedySC wrote:Also Thrawn pointed out your contradiction.

On September 18 2012 13:49 drazak wrote:
I'm already accused of being trashy town? Really Kush? Man, you're prejudiced right off the bat. I know you can post while you're at work and stuff, but I can't post in class and I can't post when I'm tutoring people. If you'd like I can sleep-post and it'll be really bad. Sorry if my posts last game weren't up to your posting standard kush.

For the record, I might not post consistently at different times, and maybe I'll push agressively against someone, my reasons will usually be good. I'd ask that people use their own logic after reading my posts, look at the evidence provided and use your logic. Last game we had a lot of people not thinking for themselves, I'll be going to bed soon so don't expect another post from me. I'll probably post in the morning, and I think I'll post before tutoring, but I don't think I'll be posting until maybe this time tomorrow again after that.

On September 18 2012 15:22 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:
Maffia XXVII survey (not filling it in will make you look scummy):

1. Will you be around for lynch time?
2. How active do you plan on being?
3. How many games have you obsed?
4. Is this your first game playing?
5. If not, how many games have you played?
6. Is this your first time playing as scum?

On September 18 2012 15:40 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:


A good policy, however, is to not answer questions intended for someone else. Whether accusations are valid or not they may induce interesting reactions, so please stop defending other players.

On September 18 2012 15:46 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:
Back to my question to you:

On September 18 2012 16:34 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:


You were answering accusations towards Kush. You don't see why that is a bad idea?

On September 18 2012 16:34 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:You want to accuse me, but you still don't want me to explain? You're not giving my argument a fair representation. I still think lists is a good idea if they're limited to your ~3 top suspects AND include your reasoning. That way it's easy to follow a player's thought process through the thread wrt to his key reads (instead of reads being blended into a wall of text, hi there Jacob). That's what I suggested. And you're suggesting I was hiding behind lists. I never made any long ass lists, which a lot of other players did.

Again, we don't need a list discussion. Just post your suspects along with your reasoning in any way you like. But make sure to make those posts clear.

On September 18 2012 16:34 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:So this was serious? It's a mind numbingly stupid idea. Unless you're scum and suggest it for an easy d1 town lynch. It's very easy to coordinate your scum team not to be the last one in the thread and you get away with an easy lynch. Since you don't seem mind numbingly stupid and it was a serious idea, it's scummy.

On September 19 2012 00:35 KillingTime wrote:
I don't understand the point of FoS'ing on day 1

On September 19 2012 01:56 KillingTime wrote:
I like sonic's last post on Debears though - For now my feeling is that Debears is mafia trying to blend into the thread. Debears who do you think is scum?

For now:
##Vote:debears

On September 19 2012 02:37 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:
I don't really agree with your approach. I wanted to pressure you on the off chance it was serious. Pressuring you gave me the explanation that it was "scum bait", which still doesn't make sense to me. Pressuring someone can give you more information that might be more useful than the original one. And I still want you to explained your rationale behind your post being "scum bait".

On September 18 2012 22:42 debears wrote:I think thrawn is town. Anyone with evidence pointing otherwise, please present.

On September 19 2012 04:54 rethos wrote:
Debears post seems suspicious for reasons already mentioned. The real interesting part (for me) comes after this post:



Until now thrawn2112 strikes me as a player that is willing to go after suspicious stuff (because of the whole SDM discussion). It seems to me though that debears's post does not seem suspicious to him. He seems actually biased imo which makes me think that there is some sort of alliance there.
Also interesting is to point out stuff like


He is pointing out minor stuff that he does not agree with to make it look like he is not biased. Little nitpicky stuff.

He is also not expanding on the second point in his post. That seems to be his primary concern when he started looking into it. Why doesn't he explain what has come of that concern, did it get solved? How? If not why didn't he mention it in his second post as well to give a clear and full reading. Right now it seems that he is doing his best to defend him while still being able to back out if something goes wrong.

@thrawn2112 what conclusion have you achieved regarding the last quote?

##FOS Debears
##FOS thrawn2112

On September 19 2012 04:27 kushm4sta wrote:
If I had to call a scum team right now it would be Thrawn debears drazak just because they are all defending each other at this point. The only I would be willing to lynch though is debears.
Before you jump down my throat I know it's too early to call scum teams and this is pure speculation.

On September 19 2012 05:07 Sharrant wrote:
At the same time, debears isn't really the most suspicious person to me, his defense of Thrawn could be scummy, or it might not be. It was weird, but not a strong tell either way in my opinion. However, there is getting to be a large web of people involved with debears either way.

##unvote Kushm4sta
##vote debears

I do however think that it will be a distraction until it is resolved. THere's a good chance he flips scum, and that would reflect poorly on Thrawn, who up until this point I've been relatively sure he was town. I'm not convinced he's mafia, but I'm suspicious enough of him I'd like to get to the point where we can force a claim.

On September 19 2012 05:51 kushm4sta wrote:
@thrawn you say I made a straight up lie and that's not an accusation I take lightly.

if anything it was an exaggeration and not a lie.
I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing my scumteam theories, because while I think they help in looking for cases, they do not constitute a case.
but I don't like being called a liar so here goes.
drazak is connected by saying killing is more suspicious than debears. he says they can't both be mafia so therefore debears isn't mafia. That is the classic mafia defense..defending a teammate by attacking the attacker.
and you have defended debears.
So that was the basis for that comment. Is it a real case against you? no. Is it a lie though? also no.

On September 19 2012 05:58 Sharrant wrote:


That's a ridiculous vote? You pick choice words out to discredit what I said, and try to make it personal. I'm fairly convinced the two of you are mafia after that. You know who I think is most suspicious, that hasn't been a secret. This has been mentioned in every post that Kush is my number one target, but that's not going anywhere. I think you should re-read my post. Several times even. Yes, his defense of you wasn't particularly strong either way in and of itself, that's what I said. That's one moment of his play, and you jumped all over that.

On September 19 2012 05:58 Sharrant wrote:This is exactly why I voted debears. He was scummier to me than KillingTime, and the situation between those two had to be resolved. And look, here you come in and jump all over it. I never said he was a null read, not once yet you claim I did. I said I'm not convinced he's mafia, but I'm suspcious enough of him to the point where I'd like to force him to claim.

On September 19 2012 05:58 Sharrant wrote:Do you see how different those things are? Of course you do, because you're not dumb, you're trying to buy yourself and him some room. I said he was suspicious because he's suspicious, I said I'm not convinced because I wouldn't bet my life savings that he's mafia. But I'm absolutely willing to vote for him.

Voting for him did not mean I was ready to lynch him, as it stands I'd now be ready to lynch both of you. I was pretty sure he would flip mafia before, now I'm much more certain. You tried to bully me out of voting, because you didn't agree, yet have cast no votes yourself. In fact everyone has been pretty much sitting on their hands in that regard, townies shouldn't be so scared to use their tools to hunt mafia.

Maybe I'm wrong and you and debears aren't mafia, but that "ridiculous vote" just got a pretty big scum slip in my eyes from you.

On September 19 2012 06:18 Sharrant wrote:
Where did I say I wanted him lynched? Please tell me. I said I wanted him forced to claim. I've said in every single post, that voting does not mean you want someone lynched.

I also have said several times now, that I consider him suspicious. The fact that you keep ignoring this is baffling.

On September 19 2012 06:26 rethos wrote:

Here is were I do not understand your "meh" attitude. Why, if he is town, is he trying to convince people he is right? What does that do? How does that help? Is it just bad town play?

Also why is he so convinced that you are town? Everything in his post tries to scream "omg this thrawn2112 guy is sooooo townie"? Why is he not suspicious of you?

Confirming a townie is actually not that useful for anyone. How does that help us get scum?

If he was trying to convince people that he's right about a scum, that makes sense. Town should push scum. Trying to convince people that he's right about his town read, when that said townie is not in any real danger seems extremely odd.

On September 19 2012 06:33 rethos wrote:
@thrawn2112 since the whole debears affair, your conflict with SDM seemed to have been left in the air. What is your current read about SDM? Do you have any other reads that the town might want to know about?

On September 19 2012 08:16 Sharrant wrote:
When did I call for a blue role claim? Why are you just making shit up?

I wanted you to roleclaim, because of the little stint you and Thrawn had there. That struck me as scummy, so rather than wanting to lynch you, I wanted to get you to claim, and then depending on whether your claim was refuted or not, just drop it and possibly find someone that had revealed themselves as scummy while you were on the front of everyone's minds.

On September 19 2012 09:29 JacobStrangelove wrote:
Oh I feel... yeah my bad I missed that part. Don't worry you will hear more from me as the game goes on just hard at the moment with so many assigments I have like two due tonight... hmm the role claim thing just seems so... scummy I still can't see how it helps town as much as you think it would...

On September 19 2012 09:40 kushm4sta wrote:
imo don't even think about serial killer until he kills someone and we know he exists.

look for a substantial post from me at like 10 pm. I will break down debears latest post and expand on my argument about why I think he's scummy.

the second half of d1 is approaching and I think we should solidify our bandwagons instead of accusing people like thrawn who are just not gonna get lynched today.

also why are so many people already voting sharron? His play is really stupid with the roleclaim call, but stupid play doesn't make you mafia. you think first time mafia would really be so confidently retarded like that?

On September 19 2012 05:07 Sharrant wrote:
At the same time, debears isn't really the most suspicious person to me, his defense of Thrawn could be scummy, or it might not be. It was weird, but not a strong tell either way in my opinion. However, there is getting to be a large web of people involved with debears either way.

##unvote Kushm4sta
##vote debears

I do however think that it will be a distraction until it is resolved. THere's a good chance he flips scum, and that would reflect poorly on Thrawn, who up until this point I've been relatively sure he was town. I'm not convinced he's mafia, but I'm suspicious enough of him I'd like to get to the point where we can force a claim.

On September 19 2012 08:29 thrawn2112 wrote:
hey killing where's that post you promised us?

First you come in with the wildy off topic FOS post, then you make a vote for debears because you "liked sdm's post" which was pretty much the extent of your 2 sentence justification for your vote, then your next post is more about the FOS stuff and you give excuses for why you aren't posting and promise us a post which never came. ##FOS Killing

On September 20 2012 00:54 Sharrant wrote:Debears, your play has struck me as scummy, but I wasn't playing with full knowledge of the situation. You and Thrawn both stand a much better chance of being town in my eyes than you did 5 minutes ago.

On September 19 2012 03:14 Sharrant wrote:(SK, possibly blue or self important green)

On September 19 2012 05:07 Sharrant wrote:
I do however think that it will be a distraction until it is resolved............ I'm suspicious enough of him I'd like to get to the point where we can force a claim.

On September 19 2012 05:58 Sharrant wrote:
Voting for him did not mean I was ready to lynch him, as it stands I'd now be ready to lynch both of you. Maybe I'm wrong and you and debears aren't mafia, but that "ridiculous vote" just got a pretty big scum slip in my eyes from you.

On September 19 2012 12:15 Sharrant wrote:
In particular, I think there's one candidate that would clear up most of this. Most of the reason for me voting for debears in the first place was because of KillingTime. .............So it goes on a few ifs, but the lurker that I'm most comfortable going after in this situation is KillingTime. If we lynch him, and if he flips mafia, that's the end of any case of mine against debears and Thrawn.

On September 20 2012 00:54 Sharrant wrote: I wasn't playing with full knowledge of the situation. You and Thrawn both stand a much better chance of being town in my eyes than you did 5 minutes ago.

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

So, I'm going with the lurkers now. Remedy, that vote randomly popping up on Kush is pretty suspicious to me, but I'm still more suspicious of stutters. So that's where my vote is going for now, but depending on Stutters next post, it could end up on Remedy very easily.

On September 20 2012 05:39 drazak wrote:
Super busy today, read most the posts, willing to ##VOTE Sherrant I'll try to post more tonighnt

On September 20 2012 06:04 Sharrant wrote:
Okay, so lynches only ever occur at the end of the day, there's no auto lynch once you hit 50%+1? Because I didn't actually see the style of voting mentioned in the OP. So I just assumed the person with the majority of votes at the end of the day is lynched, or if someone has a majority of the votes on them they are lynched.

Then I take back the part about L-1, question why no one else said anything about it earlier when I brought up L-1, and apologize to Drazak about it.

But still, Drazak, do you not see why posting a vote with aboslutely no reasoning is scummy?

On September 20 2012 06:30 kushm4sta wrote:
@killing I understand it as sharrant is not roleclaiming. He was trying to get debears to roleclaim mason. I think that's it.

On September 20 2012 07:10 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:
Fuuuuck, we don't have a decent counter wagon to Sharrant or Cubu. How many posters are even around right now? How many would consider changing their vote?

On September 20 2012 07:42 kushm4sta wrote:
there is 2 hours 15 minute left

On September 20 2012 08:41 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:


It's not "killing a lurker to prove a town", it's killing a town to prove a town. We would be at d3 without both masons and with either 1 or 2 extra townies dead (depending on how successful our d2 lynch is). Best case scenario is d3 with one scum lynched, 2 masons dead and 1 VT night killed. That's bad. The worst case scenario is fucking horrible.

On September 20 2012 09:09 kushm4sta wrote:
My thoughts on killing vs drazak.
drazak
I didn't even think drazak is scummy. I just voted for him now because of the last minute omg we need to vote for someone confusion.
1 he is not that scummy. a lot of scumhunting and nothing that strikes me as a huge scumslip
2 he's not even a lurker. I thought he was more of a lurker but I just went through his filter and I would not consider him a lurker.

killingtime
i was in the process of reading his filter just now, but i just realized the deadline already passed.
so fail.

On September 20 2012 09:22 kushm4sta wrote:


No? What caused that instant bandwagon was sharrant telling everybody that he and cubu were masons. suddenly our 2 bandwagons went to shit and town had to insta pick another because time was almost up.

On September 20 2012 10:08 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:


I need to go back to take a really close look at his filter. But when you say this, what are you referring to? That you thought he was lying at the time? That you still think he's lying? Or is there anything you think he's said that is a confirmed lie at this point?

On September 20 2012 00:54 Sharrant wrote: were my plan successful the information would still be 50/50 on proving mafia.

On September 20 2012 13:24 JacobStrangelove wrote:
Wait what! What on earth happened? We lynch drazak? What happened to the killing scum read?

On September 20 2012 06:29 JacobStrangelove wrote:killing I don't think is as scum as anyother lurker.(infact slightly less)

On September 20 2012 13:24 JacobStrangelove wrote: We voted for someone who our other two scum reads (assuming sharrent spoke for cubu) told us to vote for....

On September 20 2012 14:04 JacobStrangelove wrote:


Yeah but drazak seemed more town than killing, when I was refering to the killing being less that the lukers I was talking about stutters/cubu the two main lurkers under fire at the time.



Yeah? I thought that was my point. I might have missed something though.

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).

On September 20 2012 15:10 Atreides- wrote:
I didn't actually know about the no-lynch until the mod posted about it.

On September 20 2012 23:03 Sharrant wrote:
Certainly!

M-8:14PM 17th
S-10:56AM 18th
S-11:17 PM
S-11:22 AM 19th
S-11:50 AM
M-12:14 PM
S-1:01 PM
S-5:09 PM
S-5:20 PM
S-5:28 PM
S-5:46 PM
S-6:42 PM
M-7:37 PM
S-7:50 PM
S-8:05 PM
M-8:07 AM

Yeah, I probably should've posted my plan into my mason box earlier, but I was waiting for him to say literally anything first.

On September 21 2012 00:15 Sharrant wrote:
@Thrawn
I guess I didn't need to post the wall of text after that, but I felt it would help to explain my motives on you and debears to the fullest.

I think that will be the last I have to say about being a mason, still, if there are questions I'll happily answer. For now I'd like to move back onto scum hunting rather than having to prove my role.

Up on my radar right now is (in no particular order) debears, Atreides, and kush. I need to read through JAcob's most recent posts again before I have a more solid idea on him. Kush right now is up there mainly for his points immediately after Drazak's death. He says he was just bandwaggoning, got caught up writing a post so he missed the deadline, but he also never thought Drazak was lurking and the biggest slip up in my eyes. He thought Drazak was doing great things scumhunting. I can't find a post by Drazak where he's scumhunting. Also his latest posts were one lined little bits saying almost nothing.

Atreides pops up because he sort of appears every now and again, says a few things and pops off. Doesn't really seem to hunt for people, but had something to say after Drazak died nonetheless.

debears is up there for everything that happened earlier, but I'm still trying to process how the last half of day 1 changed my opinion of him. He's had good and bad posts since then which I'll need to take a closer look at.

On September 20 2012 22:31 thrawn2112 wrote:




Atreides, I'm not satisfied about the context of your 1-minute-after-deadline post. In that post you said a no-lynch would have been the best choice, and later when asked about the no-lynch thing you said you didn't know about it until a mod confirmed it as real in the thread. Which means that before you made that after-deadline post, you had been following the thread closely enough to see when marv confirmed no-lynch.

Marv's post happened at this time. However 14 minutes after marv's post Keirathi posted a vote count and specified the exact lynch time in big bold blue text. People had also been talking about lynch time because there was some confusion about it. So to me it looks like you really weren't reading the thread. You have also said that "weren't around after my last post" which reads as you saying you weren't reading the thread. Clarify the context of all that please.

On September 20 2012 06:41 Atreides- wrote: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.

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.

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.

On September 21 2012 02:44 JacobStrangelove wrote:Also I do agree about Debears latching on to you (was one of my first posts just everything else got in the way) Still need to go though his stuff side by side with your filter. (also if he does latch in all but one thing how on earth haven't you noticed it until now)

On September 21 2012 03:05 debears wrote:


The funny thing here is, thrawn, is actually I was onto Atreides before you. Here is your first post about Atreides. Look at the timestamp.

+ Show Spoiler +

Now look at the timestamp from my first post about him.

+ Show Spoiler +

Oh wait, another post about Atreides from me. Look at the timestamp.

+ Show Spoiler +

Looks like you came in after me on Atreides. Yet, you come out and lie saying that you accused him first. Then you say I continue to cockride you?

FOS Thrawn

Also, did anyone notice that although I specifically asked Atreides who he thought was the most mafia, he did not acknowledge the question one bit?

On September 19 2012 11:51 RemedySC wrote:
Kush, this post stood out to me also.



Debears posts do seem to link him and Thrawn, and if drazak is a part of this trio, than this post could just be another defense for his said teammate.

On September 21 2012 04:30 kushm4sta wrote:
no shit the scumteam was bad. it wasn't meant as anything but a description of my thought process.

On September 21 2012 04:54 kushm4sta wrote:I read his posts. I read your posts regarding his posts. I read them again. and again and again. I still dont get it. You are saying he said he didn't know about no lynch but did know about no lynch. Just confused the fuck out of me. What did he even do wrong...why does that make him mafia.

Atriedes just strikes as a big noob basically. He says stupid shit that makes no sense, but that doesn't make him mafia

On September 21 2012 05:57 kushm4sta wrote:
Just read through remedy's filter. Don't see how this guy can be anybody's "biggest read."

Your two main arguments against him.
1 He sheeped on my retarded scumteam notion.
I don't like this read because it seems like the case here is stupidity = scum. Not everyone is as enlightened as you about the uselessness of association cases. Are they bad? Yes I agree with that but I don't think making them is a scumtell.

2 His useless vote for me.
I don't see the scum motivation in this, since both our bandwagons were town. He is not following the town plan of consolidating our bandwagon, but we never made that plan concrete really.
He didn't believe in the sharrant case. He has been consistently against lynching lurkers, so that's why he wouldn't vote for cubu.

On September 21 2012 06:19 kushm4sta wrote:
In my eyes the drazak mislynch was not hotly debated. Sharrant was hotly debated. drazak was just a desperation lynch.

On September 21 2012 07:40 kushm4sta wrote:
#fos thrawn

K guys I did the legwork on this monster of a filter. Tell me what you think.

1 Being active when he said he'd be lurking

Thrawn was quite reluctant to join this game. Before the game started he warned us that he would be lurking more than usual.
Except that hasn't happened. In fact, he has been extremely active.
Imagine this, thrawn, in his 4th game, finally gets mafia, the role he has dreamt of ever since he learned about the game. That is something that could spur activity.

Obviously regardless of my alignment I am in a position to be posting up the same amount that's been my meta so far. I did not think I would have computer access this game but that has changed. Your argument is basically that before the game even started I lied about how much posting I could do somehow knowing or hoping against odds that I would be mafia and I could use that to trick people into making a false meta read.

2 His multitude of paper thin cases.
These are his accusations throughout the game so far.
1 fos sonic for making a survey

That happened at the very start of the game. Of course any accusation at that point is going to be weak. The accusation was based on me seeing a simialar action from when he was scum in our last game. I didn't see the point of the surveys. Last game as scum he proposed that people make read lists which I thought that was a scummy tactic. He was scum that game leading me to think he was doing a similar thing in this one.

2 fos killing for saying he doesn't like FOS

I didn't fos him for him saying he didn't like FOS. I fos'd him for coming into the thread at a point when people were alread makking and sharing reads and he made a fluff post.

3 vote sharrant for saying a bunch of different stupid shit

bunch of stupid shit = making a vote for debears based on a paragraph of reasoning and saying he wants to force debears to role claim. Later I stuck to my vote because he was talking about a secret plan that he wasn't willing to share with us. I assumed he was suggesting he was a blue role and I even tried to think through what possible things a blue player could do in that situation and I came up with nothing so his claim that he had a plan seemed like a complete lie.

Yet debears does not earn an fos even though he gives them out like candy...
then d2
4 fos debears for copying his arguments (d1 it was ok d2 it's not?)

First you say i am supicisous for not fosing debears and when I do it makes me suspicious?

5 atreides he tells me I need to look at for being confused about no lynch

I don't see what's scummy about that

6 remedy who is suddenly out of no where his TOP scumread. Thrawn's case: he made a commented on a stupid scumteam thought I had. Also he didn't vote for a bandwagon d1. And that's his "biggest read"...

I've already told you that my case on remedy isn't because he agreed with a stupid post. here and also read my post right after it.

Here is him yelling at killingtime for making a thin case:

But less than an hour earlier thrawn makes a case also based on only 1 sentence of justification:


Yes it's hypocritical but that doesnt mean scum

3 His total lapse of logic after sharrant role claims.

What does everyone think about this plan huh? Well what I think is that you are fishing to see if town will follow this madness. Cubu is basically confirmed town and you want to lynch him anyway.

I didn't try to push it much further than that. I think it was stutters who pointed out what the worst possible outcome of that plan was and I dropped it after that and started contributing to the lurker lynch discussion

4 the real story of d1
Thrawn is on my ass about a redirection of a killing lynch onto drazak. Well that did not happen. The real redirection, which no one has even talked about, is from debears to sharrant.

Where did I accuse you of redirecting from killing to drazak?

Debears had a majority vote. Thrawn defends debears, pushes sharrant, and suddenly sharrant has the majority vote.

That's an association case so it's assuming that at bare minimum, debears is confirmed scum in order for me to be scum.

On September 21 2012 12:25 RemedySC wrote:
Thrawn, you haven't replied to a single post I made about you. Do you have a response to any of my concerns?

Also, was that role block from mafia?

On September 21 2012 09:19 RemedySC wrote:


What are you implying with this post?

On September 21 2012 09:42 RemedySC wrote:
Okay, I don't think mafia got lucky in killing a blue.

Looks like other than the Sharrant read, Sonic's biggest read was Atreides-, Debears, and Killing.

All three have had good arguments made against them. Possibly they they thought Sonic might have more info.

On September 21 2012 08:40 RemedySC wrote:
This post by Thrawn to me screams mafia if you think of drazak as a town.



Why get worked up over this post by drazak, when he was replying to Kush? He is very capable of defending himself.

On September 21 2012 08:40 RemedySC wrote:


Scum slip? That sentence totally contradicts itself.

On September 21 2012 13:01 RemedySC wrote:
You know, I could see sonic role blocking you. His power also allows him to save someone, if his strongest town read was you, then he would use it on you.

On September 21 2012 14:43 RemedySC wrote:
Just re-read this post and want to address it.



I acknowledged an idea, that is all. Nothing ever came of it afterwards.

.

Of course you know your alignment. Why do you even have to say that.

On September 21 2012 14:43 RemedySC wrote:


I made my case against Kush, that is why I voted for him. I had no one I felt as confident about to vote against. I'm not going to just bandwagon onto someone unless I have good evidence.



Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never once said it was dumb. I stated the obvious and said it didn't go too well. Big deal? Also I mention in another post what I was doing near lynch time. Read it.

On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?

My opinions are as follows:

1) The hit on SDM is surprising. If I were mafia I would definetly try and get that confirmed townies out instead. That really irks me a lot. It means that SDM was more of a threat that having a confirmed town. I do not think that they actually got a read on him a blue. He was way to active and open, him flipping blue must have been a surprise for them as well as for us.

On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
2) Lynching an active player seems bad if we don't have a good reason. Right now the feeling I get is that mafia is laughing from the sidelines as some townies fight each other. Again back to the lurker idea. That means putting pressure on people to post.

3) Obviously the mason claim seems very fool proof. It all fits back way to good. The only way it's not true is if Sharrant was planning it all along when there was no pressure and tricked us all into accusing him. (very unlikely - if so... well played sir well played). Obviously also it's a bad risk/reward thing since now if something happens, we have two confirmed mafia.

On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
My biggest problem right now is number 2. I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose. What are the other guys's reasons? Everybody that is not posting, can you tell us why are you not? (I have given my reason, if you need me to go into more detail about it please ask).

On September 21 2012 17:45 rethos wrote:
To be clear my defense against lurking is not "hey I did it on purpose", it's "hey I will not be lurking anymore now"

On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?
..........
I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose.

On September 21 2012 18:11 rethos wrote:
Actually no.. I am sorry to all of you. But it really seems that playing mafia is really not for me. I got bored and did not want to post any more. Now I am trying to catch up and can't get bring myself to it. Yes I lied about having this weird plan of lurking intentionally. I lurked because I did not have motivation to do anything.

Again I am really really sorry. I will ask for a replacement.

On September 21 2012 17:24 rethos wrote:
Believe it or not I was actually making a test to see how much leniancy lurkers get in this game. It seems to me that it's a lot. I mean how much did people take to realize that I was not posting ANYTHING?

My opinions are as follows:

1) The hit on SDM is surprising. If I were mafia I would definetly try and get that confirmed townies out instead. That really irks me a lot. It means that SDM was more of a threat that having a confirmed town. I do not think that they actually got a read on him a blue. He was way to active and open, him flipping blue must have been a surprise for them as well as for us.

2) Lynching an active player seems bad if we don't have a good reason. Right now the feeling I get is that mafia is laughing from the sidelines as some townies fight each other. Again back to the lurker idea. That means putting pressure on people to post.

3) Obviously the mason claim seems very fool proof. It all fits back way to good. The only way it's not true is if Sharrant was planning it all along when there was no pressure and tricked us all into accusing him. (very unlikely - if so... well played sir well played). Obviously also it's a bad risk/reward thing since now if something happens, we have two confirmed mafia.

My biggest problem right now is number 2. I am guilty of it as well but I was actually doing it on purpose. What are the other guys's reasons? Everybody that is not posting, can you tell us why are you not? (I have given my reason, if you need me to go into more detail about it please ask).

On September 21 2012 18:47 JacobStrangelove wrote:
I don't see comfirmation bias in that, in the space of about 4 posts he has lied several times. One he lies about being bored. Two he lies about his defense not being based on intentinal lurking and he admits to lying about having the plan in this first place.

Scum have plenty of reason to lie, town don't. Just say he was town.. he wouldn't see himself as more a target than anyone else who is lurking. I think guilt gave him away. Also if he is town and lies.... then he is playing the game very wrong...

On September 21 2012 19:11 KillingTime wrote:
I sort of feel he is breaking the rules here and messing up the game. Saying explicitly with like 36hrs of a day left that you are going to get replaced in thread - when the first post explicitly says that you should PM the mod and that you can't get modkilled to help you team - seems to violate the spirit of those rules if not the exact letter for me. Meh I guess that is a mess for the mods to sort out and not us. But this is not cool

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 00:16 Sharrant wrote:
Hey, guys. I can 100% guarantee you that SDM was not the one who role blocked THrawn. Somebody else did that.

Why am I so sure? Because I was roleblocked, and it had previously been discussed me being RB'ed by the jailor so that I wouldn't die. It makes no sense for anyone else to RB me, either we have a seperate town RB'er who is still very suspicious of me, or we have a very bad mafia RB'er who thought RB'ing a mason would actually do something.

In my mind it's much more likely SDM RB'ed me, and a townie or mafia RB'ed Thrawn. Thrawn, I would like to know exactly how your RB text was written. EXACTLY. Please.

Now here's where things get tricky. I assume SDM RB'ed me to save me. And there was another possible jailor, possible vanilla roleblock, or possible lie about a role block by Thrawn. (I do consider Thrawn fairly town so I'm not sure about him lying, it seems to be a big risk). So here's where the really big question comes in

If someone is jailed and attacked, are they informed they survived an attack?

Because if they are not informed, it's entirely possible that I was attacked, or Thrawn was attacked, but we don't know. Thus the SK possibility is just as high as it started. Hell, it's entirely possible that due to the flavour we're considering that a mafia attack, when it was an SK attack. He's said the fluff is just fluff, so we don't know what type of scum killed him. (For now I'm still considering it a mafia attack though, but it's a 70-30 thing because I think mafia would more likely go after me, and SK more likely SDM, but this is a newbie game so that's just speculation)

If we are informed, then it's most likely there is no SK, unless they took a liking to my earlier post on how I would play an SK in this situation.

Rethos' replacement is kind of out of the blue for me, I had a scum feeling about him before, I'm not sure how that will change with him suddenly having a new personality.

Kush does stand out to me as a distinct possibility as mafia, but I do agree we should focus more on the lurkier players still. THere's a very good chance that the group of Dandel Ion, Remedy, Atreides, KillingTime contain at least one scum.

Just spitballing here, but Remedy+KillingTime or Dandel Ion+Atreides make the most sense as teams in my head unless there's some attack-y stuff between them I'm not remembering. There's a good chance only one of those 4 is scum though, unfortunately it's hard to read while they're still lurking. At least with Dandel Ion we should hopefully be getting a more clear read today.

Also, especially with the new players joining it's imperrative you check the spelling of people's names. Honestly, my name was misspelled ninety percent of the time on Day 1, it got a little annoying. And some of them were really funny on other people, like Atreides had his name bombed pretty hard.

On September 21 2012 21:55 kushm4sta wrote:
in between class high as fuck so I'm gonna keep this short. mafia don't get bored.he might have lied about his reason for afking but I don't think he lied about being bored.
all he did was turn this thread into scum paradise basically.

On September 22 2012 01:06 kushm4sta wrote:

Why would he leave the game if he wasn't bored?

On September 22 2012 01:25 kushm4sta wrote:


So just that suspicion was enough to make him say oh fuck the only way out of this is to quit from the game and pretend im bored?
That doesn't seem likely to me.

On September 21 2012 22:57 Dandel Ion wrote:
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.

On September 22 2012 01:39 Dandel Ion wrote:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=367548&currentpage=35#683

My filter is not that big (yet)....

On September 22 2012 01:49 Dandel Ion wrote:
But that's arguing semantics, for you 99% = confirmed, for me it is 100% = confirmed.
As I said, I do believe them, and I do not think that they are scum.

On September 22 2012 01:56 debears wrote:
3. His claim of being bored

Someone pointed out his excitement in the pregame with the picture deal. So, lets say he was hoping he'd get the blue role or a mafia role. If he is townie, yeah he could be bored. However, why did he wait til his back was against the wall, arguably a time when he shouldn't be bored, to say he was bored and quit?

If he was a blue role, I don't understand why he would be bored since he would be a key part of the town.

If he was mafia, he wouldn't be bored since he has to think clearly and watch what he posts and try to sway people whom he knows are town against each other.

To me, this gives strong evidence that the boredom claim was indeed a lie.

On September 22 2012 03:06 kushm4sta wrote:
Mafia not leave games as a tactic. Yes mafia leaves games, but they only do it when they have an actual reason, like they are busy (weetee) or they are bored.
In newbie xxv (I think) scum dandel ion offered to leave. This was because he felt he was too busy to properly defend himself as mafia, not because he thought it was the only escape from suspicion.
So whether town or mafia I think rethos really was bored.
He was not bored pregame when he drew a cat. He was not bored d1 when he was very active and made a vote count. That I agree with. He became bored, though, and that accounts for his long afk.
If you accept that he was actually bored, the case against him falls apart. It makes sense that he lied about wanting to test lurker leniency, because he didn't want to admit to his boredom. Also it fit his point about not pressuring the lurkers enough.

On September 22 2012 03:06 kushm4sta wrote:Yes mafia leaves games, but they only do it when they have an actual reason, like they are busy (weetee) or they are bored.

On September 22 2012 03:35 kushm4sta wrote:
Thrawn I'm saying that even if he was mafia, boredom was his reason for leaving.

On September 22 2012 03:06 kushm4sta wrote:.If you accept that he was actually bored, the case against him falls apart.

On September 22 2012 03:39 Dandel Ion wrote:I would like for everyone to look at his filter and tell me what they think about this.

On September 22 2012 03:49 kushm4sta wrote:
Ok its wrong to say "mafia don't get bored" because that is an absolute. I would rather say, in my current sober state, that it is much less likely for scum to get bored.

Is there a chance he is scum? I doubt it but of course there is a chance.
I'm saying that I think bored mafia is more likely than mafia that uses faked boredom into quitting the game as a scum strategy.

On September 22 2012 04:16 kushm4sta wrote:
Wtf I was actually quite proud of my reasoning and when I wad writting it I was thinking to myself damn this is going to convince everybody

On September 22 2012 03:15 RemedySC wrote:
Also this was rethos's first game ever.

Before playing mafia, he would be excited to try it out. Maybe he couldn't get into though.

On September 22 2012 04:32 kushm4sta wrote:
I am giving my current sober read.
Why do I think he's not scum? because scum are less likely to.get bored. because being bored gives him a reason to lie about testing towns lurker leniency.

On September 22 2012 05:45 Dandel Ion wrote:
Both of you are just repeating the same thing over and over now.
This isn't constructive. Talk about something else pls.

Like my Remedy case.
I like my Remedy case.
Who else likes my Remedy case?
Who doesn't like my Remedy case?
Pls include reasons.


Also, Sharky lurking even harder than Cubu (#1 replacement (I'm only #2 cuz I wasn't insta"confirmed" town, so I'm automatically worse)), Stutters not posting and Kush & Thrawn repeating the same arguments over and over.
This all and more in this episode of "Bitches in the Brothel"

On September 22 2012 03:15 RemedySC wrote:
Also this was rethos's first game ever.

Before playing mafia, he would be excited to try it out. Maybe he couldn't get into though.

On September 22 2012 06:23 kushm4sta wrote:
thrawn at the time I didn't like the no lynch confusion argument but I don't think I ever fully understood it.

On September 22 2012 08:36 kushm4sta wrote:
Look at these two quotes:
This regarding my case against him.

(The only case I didn't understand was the atreides one. Because it was convoluted as fuck.)


These two quotes, the "or are you scum" quotes I would expect from an aggressive newb, but thrawn's meta is none of those things.

@thrawn what is the purpose of these questions? Are they jokes or what?

On September 22 2012 11:13 JacobStrangelove wrote:


Yeah I just pointed this out

On September 22 2012 13:59 kushm4sta wrote:
K so the questions everyone needs to answer: who is your biggest scumread? are you willing to hop on a stutters bandwagon?

On September 22 2012 14:06 kushm4sta wrote:
@thrawn
Why is it a sure thing that 1 scum voted for drazak?

How sure are we about the sharrant mason claim actually? I know before I said blah blah 100% why are we even talking about it, but recently i've been thinking. I only thought it was very unlikely they were scum because of the risk. Then their towniness was confirmed by the chat log timestamps. Does it actually confirm them because I pretty much just saw the timestamps and took other people's word for it without even looking at them.

On September 22 2012 14:30 JacobStrangelove wrote:(who is yourharry?)

On September 22 2012 14:36 sharky246 wrote:


I was thinking that maybe all three of you (kushm4sta, thrawn2112 and stutters695) are mafia (got nothing against you personally). I mean afterall, it is in the best interest of the mafia to lynch a townie. But to think that that is the case is abit too simplistic, albeit a possibility.

On September 22 2012 14:35 JacobStrangelove wrote:
uhh ok...

On September 22 2012 14:14 kushm4sta wrote:
wait if it's plurality vote why do we even need a backup

On September 22 2012 15:02 JacobStrangelove wrote:
Ok lol I actually pm'd him so...

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 01:48 kushm4sta wrote:
@thrawn please change your vote. Your argument for stutters was really good, yet you dont vote for him?

On September 22 2012 03:15 RemedySC wrote:
Also this was rethos's first game ever.

Before playing mafia, he would be excited to try it out. Maybe he couldn't get into though.

On September 23 2012 07:20 kushm4sta wrote:
nah I don't like this. anyone want to switch back to stutters?

remedy lynch is based on feel reads and presumed scumslips.
he doesn't care about who gets lynched... how the fuck does that make him scum?

anyone want to swtich back to stutters?

On September 23 2012 07:34 kushm4sta wrote:
thrawn are you there? your drazak lynch theory, about how at least 1 scum voted for drazak. I can't stop thinking about this. turns out itsnot just your theory it is a known truism of mafia.
Now we know there are only 3 possible scum that voted for him. stutters myself and you. if you believe in that theory, how can you not lynxh stutters...
unless you are the mafia who voted

On September 23 2012 07:41 kushm4sta wrote:
@thrawn well if its true you are town and you have doubts about me, isn't that more of a reason to vote stutters

On September 23 2012 07:58 kushm4sta wrote:
but your scumreads are always wrong thrawn.

On September 23 2012 08:09 kushm4sta wrote:
If we are both scum then you Lynch stutters a scum.

if no one is scum.. well that is possible but its also an extreme rarity.

On September 23 2012 08:45 kushm4sta wrote:
why stutters over remedy even though they are both scum reads?

because at least 1 scum voted for drazak bandwagon. stutters voted for him, remedy didn't

On September 23 2012 08:55 Atreides- wrote:
@debears, I didn't really see much substance in your case vs Dandel. A lot of it was based on your case against rethos (which I disagreed with)

and all thrawn really did was point out the stupid things that remedy said. Again, I can't see the difference here between town mistakes vs mafia intentional bad posting.

On September 23 2012 09:06 Dandel Ion wrote:

I know that was most likely a typo, but it really does look like that.

On September 21 2012 18:47 JacobStrangelove wrote:
I don't see comfirmation bias in that, in the space of about 4 posts he has lied several times. One he lies about being bored. Two he lies about his defense not being based on intentinal lurking and he admits to lying about having the plan in this first place.

Scum have plenty of reason to lie, town don't. Just say he was town.. he wouldn't see himself as more a target than anyone else who is lurking. I think guilt gave him away. Also if he is town and lies.... then he is playing the game very wrong...

On September 19 2012 13:54 JacobStrangelove wrote:
Oh cool stutters is here *waits* Funny how you show up right after I make a statement about you but it could be coincidence.

On September 19 2012 14:03 JacobStrangelove wrote:


Yeah it looks really bad, that said assuming you are mafia you would probably do everything you could to get a post out to avoid this... (as in last night although you would probably also do a post like this anyway)

On September 23 2012 11:55 kushm4sta wrote:
What caused you to drop your suspicion of dandel/rethos? Because it came totally out of the blue.

On September 23 2012 11:55 kushm4sta wrote:Your plan originally was to vote for dandel then change your vote to stutters if it became clear dandel wasn't getting lynched. Why did you abandon your plan for remedy?

On September 23 2012 23:08 kushm4sta wrote:
so I just read killing's filter for the first time in like 2 days. I thoght that there were specifically 2 things kilLing did that made him look really town. Now I can only find one.
He initiates the plan to check the mason chat.
this doesn't guarantee him town.
but I read his filter and honestly it just does not seem that suspicious to me.
granted he has been quite afk. I would say its a town leaning null read atm.

On September 23 2012 23:18 Dandel Ion wrote:I was saying Killing has a "higher chance", meaning I have less of a town read on him than I have on Kush. It's a direct comparison.
I don't currently think Killing is too scummy, but I aknowledge the possibility that he might be. He's pretty null to me though.

I don't think Kush is scum. In other words, I think Kush is town.

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 24 2012 06:53 Atreides- wrote:
I think that killer's posts have improved a bit since day 1. Looking at his filter from the previous game, he didn't post much there either. Lynching him at this point would be a joke when we can make good reads on other players. If he's town, that makes him a good topic of discussion for scum. Hell, just look at how the last two lurker lynches turned out.

Seems like everyone has suspected kush at some point or another...after the recent flips I'm leaning on him being town though. The way he switches stances so easily looks genuine to me, I don't think scum would be as likely to do that.

@thrawn - hopefully you and jacob will be the topics of discussion for today, so your post is a good diversion to that. A trainwreck of a post at that.



That was your post from earlier...and yet you bring up the same arguments AGAIN. Before I was a null-read, and now you FOS me? For the same thing?

On September 24 2012 06:53 Atreides- wrote:You address only some of the stuff I made in that post, the stuff that I myself admitted was weak. You didn't respond to my strongest point:
+ Show Spoiler +

That's two times you've been completely contradictory. Wanted to get this out there first, going to respond to some other things in the meantime.