Newbie Mini Mafia XXIX - Page 6

On October 26 2012 19:36 Alsn wrote:
Just woke up and read through the thread.

First impressions are that Djodref seemed way more defensive than he needed to be towards my accusation. It was merely meant as a prod(which he probably realized) yet he felt the need to resort to insulting me as a way to discredit my points. If nothing else, it has sparked a ton of discussion, so I'm happy about that. To clarify, Djod does still feel slightly scummy to me, yet I'm still not convinced about him being town or scum as his actions can definitely be explained from both perspectives if one tries to. His main redeeming action to me is his willingness to stick to his guns and pressure Inig even though he was under pressure himself. I see that as a more townie move than a scum move, yet with all the other things brought up against him I don't feel that it's enough to clear his name.

That being said, my reads so far amount to mostly very slight reads in one way or the other. I think my strongest reads so far are Rad/debears who are looking both pretty towny, simply due to how willing they are to put themselves out there. If nothing else they have given us a lot of things to put into context once people start to flip, which is very good for town.

Right now I'd be in favour of lynching a lurker, simply due to the fact that I don't consider Djodref to be a strong enough of a read to me at this point. To sum up, I feel the benefits of getting rid of a non-contributor such as Roco currently outweighs the chance of Djodref flipping scum. Although Roco if you are still following the thread and haven't given up, posting your own feelings about the topics in the thread so far would go a long way towards eliminating suspicion against you.

I'll take a look at Inig's points regarding Dandel, but unless I missed something extremely incriminating when I read through it the first time I'd still be in favour of lynching a lurker.

On October 26 2012 14:34 Rad wrote:


My original concerns came from the "confidence" ordeal from before. As I found with debears, that can turn out to be a huge ordeal and I'll address it again if I feel the need to.

My concerns about your unwillingness to change your stance on something regardless of the arguments provided are still there. To me, as I've stated, this feels like a scummy perspective. I can't see a good reason for a townie to not be open to changing their opinions on something based on further arguments. "No no no not going to budge on this!" feels scummy. "Let me hear your points, ok, I disagree and here's why" feels townie.

It was the way you handled the questions. It doesn't matter that it was about just a particular point, or even if that point mattered in the end, but that you were so specific about never changing your opinion on it regardless of the arguments provided. It didn't feel like a townie move, so I can only suspect scum, but furthermore, you've dodged my questions until now. Why? If you can so simply answer them now, why didn't you do it before? You clearly saw them, acknowledged them, but didn't answer them. Instead, you said you were done with me.

Going to have to look over all this in more depth tomorrow as I'm getting tired and need to wind down.

On October 26 2012 22:47 Dandel Ion wrote:
Man, I did get a bit emotional, I admit, but I really do consider him scummy. Not just because he accused me specifically.

I can see, however, that Ingi lynch will probably not go through today, since nobody wants to support it.

I'm keeping my vote on him for now (because, conversely, I don't find the Djo suspicions to be too compelling) and I still have hope that maybe some people will look at it the same way.

On October 26 2012 23:05 sylverfyre wrote:
Early on, Djo, I felt a contradiction from you based on a combination of you criticizing the lurker policy + calling out a lurker. More recently, you've switched gears a lot and been unsatisfied in defenses mounted against your case.

Finally just now claiming "not needing to consolidate" is fishy to me too. If we don't consolidate, we're going to have someone get lynched with like 3 votes, reducing scum's need to assist in the lynchwagon as well as improving scum ability to make sure one of their own cannot be lynched - so we're less likely to find scum today, but equally importantly, we would have less information later in the game (and could cause town to go rabid on itself) We want to consolidate.

I dunno if mods have more replacements lined up, I sure hope so. Having 3 playerdrops happen on day 1 is really depressing to me.

On October 26 2012 23:05 sylverfyre wrote:
Early on, Djo, I felt a contradiction from you based on a combination of you criticizing the lurker policy + calling out a lurker. More recently, you've switched gears a lot and been unsatisfied in defenses mounted against your case.

Finally just now claiming "not needing to consolidate" is fishy to me too. If we don't consolidate, we're going to have someone get lynched with like 3 votes, reducing scum's need to assist in the lynchwagon as well as improving scum ability to make sure one of their own cannot be lynched - so we're less likely to find scum today, but equally importantly, we would have less information later in the game (and could cause town to go rabid on itself) We want to consolidate.

I dunno if mods have more replacements lined up, I sure hope so. Having 3 playerdrops happen on day 1 is really depressing to me.

On October 26 2012 23:05 sylverfyre wrote:
Early on, Djo, I felt a contradiction from you based on a combination of you criticizing the lurker policy + calling out a lurker. More recently, you've switched gears a lot and been unsatisfied in defenses mounted against your case.

Finally just now claiming "not needing to consolidate" is fishy to me too. If we don't consolidate, we're going to have someone get lynched with like 3 votes, reducing scum's need to assist in the lynchwagon as well as improving scum ability to make sure one of their own cannot be lynched - so we're less likely to find scum today, but equally importantly, we would have less information later in the game (and could cause town to go rabid on itself) We want to consolidate.

I dunno if mods have more replacements lined up, I sure hope so. Having 3 playerdrops happen on day 1 is really depressing to me.

On October 26 2012 14:02 Djodref wrote:


@Alsn

The slip I have made was because I was mentioning another game I have been playing with daoud where he was town. I understand it can be seen as a scumslip. It's a valid point but not a strong one in my opinion.

I have asked questions to many people, not only Inig and Roco. This is a misrepresentation of the reality. It's true that I'm focusing a lot on Inig but it's because I think he is scum. That's why I want people to give their thoughts about him.

Criticizing Rad for his support of lurker policy lynch doesn't mean I don't want to lynch a lurker. I don't want to protect the lurkers or anything like that. I just don't want us to use blindly the policy lynch or to rely on it too much. If a lurker is scummy enough (like Inig in my eyes), I would lynch him for being scummy, nor for the policy.

I think your FoS is forced by the way...

On October 26 2012 20:34 Djodref wrote:


@Alsn

As I've said, I was expecting better reasons from you to cast a FoS on someone, given your meta. Moreover, you kept saying things like "it could be scum, it could be town". Hence the half-assed comment.
I didn't realize that you were busy nowadays and I was very wary of your low post counts. Thus I've been provoking you on purpose to see what kind of reaction you would have. I can say that you kept your cool and I appreciate it.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted but I was attacking your "case", not your person.

On October 26 2012 23:29 sylverfyre wrote:

What kind of condescension is this?

1 - Clarity, who has already been modkilled
2 - Roco69, who has not posted since posting some pretty questionable stuff. He was immediately asked questions about it, and never responded.
3 - imcasey, who hasn't posted at all. (Likely player to get replaced, though.)

On October 26 2012 23:33 sylverfyre wrote:
Day one but you want someone, who is ostensibly town, to have a better reason than "well his post seems kinda fishy" for an FOS?

On October 26 2012 23:33 sylverfyre wrote:
Day one but you want someone, who is ostensibly town, to have a better reason than "well his post seems kinda fishy" for an FOS?

On October 26 2012 22:22 Alsn wrote:
/snip

For that reason, I'm going to go with my strongest scum read so far, Djodref. Like I said though, I don't really feel like we have particularly good odds on him(only slightly better than random), but at the very least people have actually committed to taking stances on him and been forced to explain why. We would gain nothing by lynching a possible modkill who has said basically nothing, as no one could really be blamed for wanting them gone.

/snip

##Vote: Djodref

Will be looking over the other cases made so far to see if maybe there are better reasons than my own to be found, but for now I'm not yet convinced by anyone.

On October 26 2012 23:44 sylverfyre wrote:

I missed it initially (I was asleep at the time of his modkill) and didn't notice it immediately upon waking up, especially cause nobody had mentioned it. I had just noticed it when I made the "3 drops" comment, and agreed when daoud posted "wow, nobody is talking about this? and my reply to daoud amounted to an "i know right?"

Furthermore, it's not so much me being frustrated at 3 players lurking out of the game, but 3 players vanishing from the game before the end of day 1 is pretty depressing and could easily cause this game to suffer infant mortality.
And your condescending tone towards me and other accusers ("half-assed FOS") is bothering me.

On October 26 2012 23:49 sylverfyre wrote:

Uh, I've said my reasons. I don't find your defenses/ignorance of accusations adequate, I don't like how you're like BLIND LURKER POLICY IS BAD when NOBODY was advocating blind lurker policy (last resort lurker policy) which pretty much was turning the discussion into a very useless one, then you turn around and start aggressively attacking Ini for lurking. Finally I don't like how you accuse Ini of "not scumhunting" when he makes some well-thought-out town-aligned reads (and some null-reads)

On October 26 2012 23:54 Alsn wrote:
Djod, just quoting my post and then writing something after it doesn't mean you addressed it. In fact, your response is illogical. You state a truth "I have most certainly asked questions of more than just Roco/Inig!" yet that truth was irrelevant to my criticism of you. My criticism was that you indeed asked a lot of questions but the only people you actually shared your own thoughts about were to cast suspicion on Roco/Inig, for reasons of them being lurky. Yet at the same time you criticised Rad for being in favour of lurker lynching.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to distract the issue or if you genuinely misunderstood my criticism of you but I'm inclined to let my vote stay for now. However, I will definitely be checking the thread for the next 5-6 hours to see if there's any reason for me to change it.

I'd just like to remind everyone that I can not be here for lynch like I stated during pre-game. Exam starts tomorrow at 8:30 local time and lynch is at 02:00. At the very latest I'll be here until ~3 hours before lynch.