Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 53

Is Shz willingly revealing his own motivations and reasoning?
I'm saying yes to this one, but with the proviso that some of those reasons aren't entirely convincing. The best example of this would be the day 1 post detailing which of a Corazon, FatChunk and Threesr lynch would give the most information. link
Lynching for information alone isn't really a good idea, but Shz is providing this insight into his thought process without being prodded. Could be mafia attempting to control the direction of play, but also could be honest town. He also defended Omni with his own ideas, not anyone else's. In hindsight I was a bloody idiot for sheeping on the Omni wagon, his defence and Shz's should have been convincing.

I guess my point is here that these could be entirely fabricated thoughts, or they could be genuine. It's hard to tell. His reasons for jumping on the Spag wagon were pretty much nonexistent, but he argued his views strongly on the day two lynch.

Is Shz trying to obtain information from other players?
Yes. Not a huge amount, but he is asking some questions which lead in interesting directions. Not so many that he couldn't be scum and just making a good show of it, though.

Other comments:
Considering how much the tide had turned against Omni in day two, it would take a mafia player with some balls to stand by his defence of Omni. Again, it's not implausible that scum Shz could do this, but it's not the easy route (though beyond a certain point, turning on Omni would have looked very suspicious). He didn't make any other cases for the lynch, though. (otoh, towards the end he was only talking to Omni, Chromatic (who was shouting "Shz-Omni scum team!") and myself, who would he have made a case to?)
Also, Shz was probably the next most likely lynch after Omni, so why would Shz defend Omni if Shz were scum? Just too much of Shz scum wouldn't make sense.

Is Cakepie willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Yes. So... much... text.

Is Cakepie trying to obtain information from other players?
Yes. Not a huge amount, and not much of it's on his scumreads I think. But it's there.

Other comments:
Scum would have to be really, really enthusiastic to post this much volume in this game.

Is Kickstart willingly revealing his own motivations and reasoning?
Not a whole lot. He did give the beginnings of a case on Shz, but his case is the kind of half-assed thing I'd expect scum to make to put suspicion on a townie. It rests on Shz' failure to justify his votes and nothing else. Other than that, Kick has only given information about his motives when directly asked.

Even if he has very little time, I'd have expected him to push the Shz case harder if he believed it as much as he's said. Personally, there's no way I was confident enough on a scum read day 2 to just park all my suspicions and vote at the start of day 2 then leave, without even a pretence at pressuring anyone else.

Is Kickstart trying to obtain information from other players?
Nope. He didn't fish for reactions to the Shz case, he hasn't prodded anyone else...

Other comments:
Lurky as all hell. TBH is probably real life interfering. But there's no excuse for his failure to push his reads, 1-page filter or not. I want to emphasise this: even if you ignore his filter length, Kick's posting this game is unconstructive and not anything like I'd expect from him as town.
There's an element of questioning which is just absent. This reminds me of his XXXI scum play - his activity was a lot better there, but again he tunneled hard on one person (esp. day 1) and didn't really pursue anything else. A quick readthrough of XXXII gave me a different impression of him, I think he was more investigative there - Syl and Yamato would be better suited to confirm this.
Kick's tolerance for the poor town play this game is INCREDIBLY uncharacteristic of him.

Is Chromatic willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Yes. Posted a lot of the stuff what got Omni lynched (and, despite being wrong, I think it was good reasoning), and made his read on Shz very clear as well without prompting.

Is Chromatic trying to obtain information from other players?
Yes. Asks a fair few questions. Just read his filter.

Other comments:
I keep finding Chromatic posting the same thoughts I was having. I thought this about Sonic Death Monkey in XXXI - he was blindingly obvious town and got NKd night one and night two.
Also, I've played against Chromatic scum - and this just doesn't feel like it. Unless his scum meta has changed dramatically in less than a month of obsing games, I can't see this as scum at all.
And let's face it, if Chromatic was scum he'd have stopped pushing the town along a while ago.

Is Corazon willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Yes. Corazon's reasoning has been out in the open all game, I think. Some of it, especially day 1, was not particularly good (his vote for me, "defending himself", jumps to mind here) but his reasons were out in the open.

Is Corazon trying to obtain information from other players?
Yes. Pushes Orange and Chromatic early day 2. Not so much day one, but given the circumstances that's understandable (if not ideal).

Other comments:
My gut read on Corazon's play is a rookie walking into day 1, drawing a lot of heat and losing his nerve. Talks to coaches over night 1, comes back with much, much better play.

Is Orangeremi willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Nope. He's basically posted nothing unless asked a direct question.

Is Orangeremi trying to obtain information from other players?
Nope. Like I said, practically all he's posted are answers to questions for him.

Other comments:
No-lynch votes are null for me. Newby scum and newbie town can both not know why this isn't a good idea.

Is FatChunk willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Very little. As far as I can tell, his only explanatory posts which were not in direct reply to questions or suspicions of him were his end of day one post (which could easily be trying to make points from Spag's green flip) and this post.
In which he condemns Omni (who's since flipped town), Shz and Sylencia (for being lurking sheep). The latter are my townreads (not good ones, but still), and why isn't he just as suspicious of Orangeremi? Though he does mention Orangeremi here, I think this is mostly in response to Omni's vote on Orange.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911&currentpage=46#909
This post doesn't read town to me. "I'm going to have to vote for Omni tonight because lynching omni gives us the most amount of information"? I mean, there had been association cases drawn between Omni and other players, but really?

Is FatChunk trying to obtain information from other players?
Nope. No questions for other players, no pressure, nothing.

Other comments:

Is Threesr willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Hilariously, yes, while he was playing. I almost wrote "lolnope" without even reading his filter, but I'm glad I did read it. He did keep throwing his vote on different people, and gave his reasons - which is VERY DIFFERENT from parking your vote on your one scumread and not moving it. He's expressing his suspicions and applying pressure.

Is Threesr trying to obtain information from other players?
Only through his pressure, but that's sufficent really. So yes. I'd be happier if he'd been fishing day 2 (when we really needed some more conversation) but, y'know, he wasn't here.

Other comments:
I have difficulty picturing a scum player completely flaking day two (unless personal issues came up, I suppose - if so, my apologies). I would certainly judge Yamato's play on its strengths alone.

Oh, and this post by Yamato is almost exactly what I am thinking about this game. Town points.

Is Sylencia willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?
Yes, though only a little. Though Sylencia's filter is short, there are some posts which both contain information and were spontaneous (i.e. not answers to questions specifically asked). Specific example:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=386911&currentpage=34#673
Scum could have got away with a lot less content than that.

Is Sylencia trying to obtain information from other players?
No, not really.

Other comments:
I just can't see scum making this post.

When I read this, I realised it was exactly what I should have thought.

And the rest of Sylencia's content just rings true to me.

A quick bit of advice, Syl: I think you need to be more assertive to get more attention and response in the thread, if that's what you want. Push people harder. If you're scum, just carry on as you are

• Orangeremi gives Kick and FC as his scumreads after Spag day one, and in fact votes for FC in the end. However, he doesn't pressure them at all day 2. He also says this:
  
  
  At that point I felt it was a toss-up between FC and Kickstart in my mind and I just voted to avoid voting no-lynch (since people seemed to not want me to). I would take all the players I've mentioned with a grain of salt, especially since I haven't made a case for any of them.
  However, none of my suspicions from then compare with how convinced I am with my D2 vote. After viewing Chrom's evidence towards Omni and then reviewing it myself, there's no way he's town.
  
  
  Warning people away from taking his FC or Kick reads seriously, and excusing his Omni vote with no real justification. FatChunk and Kickstart did basically nothing overnight, though Kick did post a little at the start of day 2. I didn't think either of them became more town between day 1 and this post.
  
  
• FatChunk doesn't really talk about Kick at all, and only mentions Orange once (just after Omni's vote for Orange, which in itself is interesting). His read on Orange is inconclusive. Interestingly, he makes some points about Shz and Sylencia, mostly based on their lurking. Sylencia, fair enough, but has Shz really been lurking more than Orange or Kick at any point?
  
  
• Kick only mentions Orangeremi once, when I asked him what he thought about my case on Orange. Does say a little about FatChunk, but is inconclusive. Kickstart is experienced enough to know that he should ask his scumbuddy questions and talk about them though.
  

And in the day one lynch:

The final votecount:

Spaghetticus (7): Aquanim, OmniEulogy, Mocsta, cakepie, Kickstart, Chromatically, shz
cDgCorazon (2): threesr, Sylencia
threesr (2): FatChunk, cDgCorazon
FatChunk (1): Orangeremi
OmniEulogy (1): Spaghetticus

Scum votes spread all over the place on a day where none of them are under threat. Check.

Aaaand the day two lynch:

Final Votecount:

Orangeremi (1): OmniEulogy
OmniEulogy (7): Orangeremi, cakepie, cDgCorazon, Sylencia, FatChunk, Chromatically, Aquanim
shz (1): Kickstart
Chromatically (1): shz

Not voting (1): threesr

Scum votes a little more consolidated on the main target, and Orangeremi was under some pressure early on. Check.

It's not that I'm saying "these three are scum on the basis of these associations, lynch them" - I think they're scum individually and there's nothing about their association which wouldn't make sense from scum. In particular, there's nothing here which stops there being a single scum elsewhere.

1. Policy fluff
2. uninformative answer to and uninformative question
3. asks FatChunk for more reasoning on threesr
4. "nothing much to add"; looking for scum on threesr wagon
5. onto the spaghetticus train
6. responds to chromatically question by spag > FC on basis of volume of posts available to develop a "solid read"
--- end D1 ---
7. Shz case
8. retort against "did not expect that sort of post from you"
--- end N1 ---
9. Flips out on my early pressure vote, calls me out for blue claim?
10. responds to my denial of a blue claim
!!. conspicuously quiet despite being invited to scrutinize further
11. sticks to Shz case with no new arguments, conveniently talks about threesr -- not informative, but tries to cast threesr as scummier lurker than himself
12. has nothing useful to add about me when asked about it, other than not liking my posting.
- And then a few short, uninformative posts
- refuses to provide more ("I wrote what I thought about SHZ already")
- Shz vote, because "nothing changed for me"