Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII

On December 21 2012 07:39 cDgCorazon wrote:


I do apologize for not answering your questions, which I will do so now in the little time I have before going to work.

In terms of figuring things out, I would say between 24-36 hours should be allowed for someone at the beginning of the first day phase. That way, others can put some pressure on and make other arguments, and instead of focusing on the case of one person, they can sit back and see things from a wider perspective to make their reads. However, I do feel that they should come forward with at least their reads on Day 1, even if they do not vote for anyone. Contributing all at once with a great amount of information all at one place is a lot more convenient for all of us than make several reads as the day goes on. We know more information than we did 24 hours ago, and everyone has posted enough to get off the "lurker label", someone making a smart evaluation here would most certainly more than make up for 24 hours of not posting much detail.

Unacceptable behavior would be coming to conclusions too fast, as in threesr's case. He likes to lurk, and besides a few posts here and there, and his self-defense from my attacks, he has mostly been in the shadows. He has openly accused multiple people of being scum, which signals something is not right. Why would you pursue multiple cases within a few hours when the focus is on one or two people. To figure that out, we must ask ourselves two questions:

What would be a possible Mafia lynching policy?
The mafia knows who the other mafia are, so they should be looking to defend fellow mafia that are under attack. On offensive lynching policy, they should all look to communicate with each other to be on the same page voting wise, and as long as a member of the mafia does not get lynched, they are content to see anyone and everyone get lynched, because it would be the town just killing themselves off and playing the game for them. Hypothetically, the mafia could not kill anyone and still win the game if the town manages to argue themselves to death. Of course, this is unlikely.

What would be a possible SK lynching policy, assuming that we have an SK?
The SK policy is similar to the mafia's lynching policy, except the only one they have to defend is themselves. They are ok with anyone and everyone getting lynched, as long as it is not them. Along with the Mafia, they could hypothetically win without killing anyone, as long as the town lynches each other, and he never get targeted.


If you would like more detail, do not be afraid to ask. I will gladly be able to help you after work.

On December 22 2012 09:15 cDgCorazon wrote:
I feel like OJR (which is what I’m calling he/she from now on, much easier to write) needs to step up his scum-hunting efforts in order to clear suspicion from myself. OJR has all the room to defend themselves, but until OJR picks it up, I am very suspicious of them.

On December 22 2012 12:30 Orangeremi wrote:

I wasn't swayed either way by it. Your case was a tough one to argue and he tried. I don't feel like he succeeded. When he answered my question about his defense it seemed to me even fluffier as well.

At this point I think it's fairly obvious, unfortunately I woke up too late to detail a case myself. Most everything that could've been said about him has been. It will take a fair deal of convincing for me to change my mind before Day's end.

##Vote: OmniEulogy

On December 22 2012 12:59 Orangeremi wrote:
Is there anything in specific you're looking for? All of your claims are valid, and you just asked me to step up my scum hunting.

On December 22 2012 13:26 Orangeremi wrote:
I don't like how Threesr is playing if he's town. He's helping very little and I could see him playing a reverse psychological scum the way he is acting.

I've got my eye on FC, but want to hold off on further judgements until I see him post this Day

I'm also waiting on more from Kickstart, I'm wary of how he's playing this game as opposed to his last one.

On December 22 2012 14:01 Orangeremi wrote:
@cake I'm interested in his theory regarding you+OE+Chrom scum team, but I don't know how much credibility it has.

On December 28 2012 08:55 Orangeremi wrote:
Since that train seems to be going somewhere and scum seems fine with us voting Kick.


##Vote: shz

Chrom, if shz turns town I'm looking at you. Hopping off of FC wagon when it seemed to gain momentum was something I was looking for.

On December 28 2012 08:58 FatChunk wrote:
okay well I think that either of the two people are scum: sHz and kickstart, and to be honest the last post of shz on the 27th was really scummy to me. I hope we're right.

##unvote
##Vote: sHz

On December 28 2012 10:52 FatChunk wrote:
Okay so here is/was my thought process.

Chrom made some interesting observations about sHz, enough to cause me to make my read slightly stronger about sHz than Kick. After all, kick was a lurker more than anything, and scum lynch > lurker lynch. I was pretty confident in following someone with town rep like chrom, especially someone who is willing to risk his town rep on a scum read.

but at this point I think that sHz is cleared, right? if shz was scum, Kickstart, a player with some experience, would not accuse sHz of scum that early in the game: it is just bad play. Unless kick was making bad cases to be shot down and appear to be scumhunting. Distancing himself from fellow scum? I don't know.

Orangeremi, kickstart's scum partner, chooses to try and swing the vote toward sHz as a last minute attempt. His explanation is that he didn't think kickstart was scum, and that he voted me to judge my reaction.

On December 21 2012 04:03 FatChunk wrote:
chromatically - I have noticed that he pressures too hard to the point of almost lying and skewing my words and overanalyzing small reactions in order to further his agenda. Faint vibe that I think should be looked into. Also, he seems like an experienced player which is scary if hes mafia.

On December 24 2012 03:03 FatChunk wrote:
Regarding his[OE's] FoS on me:
All I ever said was that I had a suspicion of chrom, something that needed to be examined after a lynch of omni, who is the most suspicious right now in my eyes. I also simply mentioned that Mocsta's case should be considered as we move forward.

On December 28 2012 18:26 cDgCorazon wrote:
I've been looking or the events and posts surrounding Shz's almost-lynching, and I've come up with a few things I'd like to share.

I think it's ok to vote for Shz. His play has still been sub-par this game, and I'm not saying that anyone is scum or not just because of how they voted.

Cake (Voted for FC)- He already stated his reasoning, and I think that his points have merit. We shouldn’t look too much into Cake’s decision to vote FC.

Chrom- While he was not the first one to vote for Shz, he started the whole bandwagon with:
+ Show Spoiler +

His reasons for Shz are solid, and I feel the same way. When he says that Shz did not vote on D2, he really meant it. His D2 vote for Chrom was really just a useless vote, and could have been used somewhere else. The OMGUS vote, along with the lurking and lack of contribution, shows that Chrom's vote for Shz was justified and reasonable. Unfortunately, I have to give Chrom the title of shepherd, because what came next became a clusterf**k of sheeping.

Kick-Obviously, this is one of the more puzzling votes, but figuring out his motives could help us greatly in the scumhunt ahead. The most curious thing about his vote was the timing. His vote for Shz was 10 minutes before the deadline.
-Why would he time it that late if he wanted to make a move to save himself?
-Wouldn’t a better way to save himself be to defend himself a few hours before?
-Had Kick given up, and was just exploiting a possible way to escape lynching, or was he trying to create some last minute chaos to rock everyone right before the votes were final?



This is a very likely possibility, if Kick acted alone, it was more likely because of this cause. More on how we should find out at the end of the post. For now, let’s move on to the other two.


Orange:
+ Show Spoiler +

This is sheep #1. His whole post says, “I’m a sheep, I’m voting for Shz. The shepherd is supposed to be in charge of me, so if things go wrong with this vote, I can just dump the blame on him”. That is basically how his vote played out. This is textbook scum play. What is one way scum stays out of the spotlight? Joining the bandwagon of someone who has a strong town read from many other players in the game. This does one of two things:

Gets rid of someone that scum knows is town, which puts the town in an even worse position.
Giving Orange a way out if the vote goes wrong. If Shz flipped town, Orange can just point the finger at Chrom and stay in the shadows while another townie gets lynched.

He even admits that is what he wants to do:



Sheeping and not scumhunting are two tell-tale signs of scum. He doesn’t even try to defend himself when I directly call him out, he just ignores it and posts. We need to pressure him. He’s gotten away with this behavior so far because everyone else’s behavior was just so bad.

FatChunk
His original vote post: + Show Spoiler +

His post explaining his vote:
+ Show Spoiler +

The part that interested me most was the line:


Which contrasts with this post (this isn’t the whole post, but I made sure not to take him out of context):

+ Show Spoiler +
And this post:
+ Show Spoiler +

Well, isn’t that a complete 180 from D1 and D2? What gave you such a change of heart? Maybe it was the mislynch of Omni. FC could have figured out that if he says that he believes that Chrom is town, it could be to just keep Chrom around to be the shepherd to get all the townies to lynch themselves (which happened on D2, and possibly almost happened on D3). He could also reading Chrom as town because if the town decide to lynch Chrom off (in the case that Shz got lynched and flipped town), he can defend Chrom and therefore get some town cred if Chrom flips town. While it is not as open as Orange, FC’s sheeping needs to be looked into. He also needs to explain his change of heart on Chrom, and start naming off some suspects if he wants to prove he is not scum.

So the question is: Where do we go from here?

It seems like the next lynch could shape up to be a lynch for information. In normal circumstances, it is a bad thing, but with all the chaos that finished up Day 3, lynching for answers could be the way to root out the last 2 scum. Now that we have some more breathing room, and LYLO is again just a bad dream for now, a lynch for information here might be very beneficial to the town.

Do we lynch Shz, and figure out if his almost-lynch today was a bunch of sheeps, or a mafia clusterf**k?

Do we lynch someone who jumped on the bandwagon, and figure out from there if the bandwagon on Shz was an attempt to bus, or a case with some merit, which would put Shz back under suspicion?

On December 22 2012 09:15 cDgCorazon wrote:
While we are all giving out possible cases. A few points have been covered so far, but I believe we should put all of our options on the table, and I would like to do this before someone else does so and make me look like a bandwagoner.

A case against Orangeremi.
Someone I would like to make a case against is Orangeremi, who has not made a significant enough contribution to the town to be completely innocent, and their lack of participation of making real discussion has made me very skeptical about their town/scum status. Besides 1-2 posts, the rest have not been very thought-provoking, and have been mostly one-liners and stuff that does not advance the discussion forward. This is a very safe strategy to not attract attention, a strategy which would benefit a scum very much.



While I would like to say that his/her intentions were good, they have waited too long to come forward with any names. This implies that either they have not seen anything from anyone that has looked suspicious (which I highly doubt, as other people have said suspicious things), or he is afraid to come forward with any accusations because that would put them in the spotlight. From my earlier post:



Orangeremi’s only hint of who he feels as suspicious has come in the way of this post:



They named 4 people who they are slightly suspicious of, but put no reason behind any of his suspicions. This is a scummy action because they simply did not have a good reason for suspecting those 4 people to be scum. A big scum tell is just accusing people without giving any arguments, or arguments that do not make any logical sense. It is almost hoping that the town agrees so the scum’s lynch target(s) can go down, without making any effort whatsoever. Since Orangeremi has not given arguments for why Threesr, Fatchunk, and Sylencia (they have given an argument for me) are scum, we should assume for now that he/she does not have an argument for them. Not only is that a weak accusation, but a scummy accusation as well.

I feel like OJR (which is what I’m calling he/she from now on, much easier to write) needs to step up his scum-hunting efforts in order to clear suspicion from myself. OJR has all the room to defend themselves, but until OJR picks it up, I am very suspicious of them.

I also wish that if you guys vote for OJR later, you should have a good reason for doing it as well. I'm not too fond of bandwagoners.