Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVII

On February 14 2013 05:13 zarepath wrote:
It almost sounds like the mods constructed a specimen made of the parts of fallen mafia vets, designed and and brought back to life with a single purpose of winning this game of mafia.

On February 14 2013 10:17 Mocsta wrote:
(3) Your RB; town JK or scum RB?

On February 14 2013 11:22 Sevryn wrote:
alright so first holy shit at these Night kills I would imagine its a sk because of the vigi being one shots and there not being a great case on either of the people who died.
second I would like to point out some points of concern for me on corazon
1. He didnt vote for the person he claimed was the scummiest d1 instead voting for glurio with only two votes on glurio so it was still anybodys game as to who got lynched at the time he swapped his vote.
2.this part of his recent post seemed odd because a vote for me wasnt really a non vote seeing as I was the second closest person to being lynched.

On February 14 2013 11:34 Mocsta wrote:
TestSubject,

I read the logic over a few times; I think the options listed are valid.

ObviousOne is a candidate for SK.. but I need to hear somethings from you first

Can you please clarify:

If scum did not value ObviousOne; why would you target him? That part of the story needs to be complete for me.


As an aside, we know ObviousOne isnt JK, because the kill went through despite a "JK block"
Completely agree on the vig logic deduction.


Second question:
Lets say ObviousOne claims VT => (COULD be Nosy Neghbour, he is not self-aware)
What do we do; do we lynch ObviousOne?
If so, if he flips town; does that mean we lynch you next?

I want to believe your claim; but the umm.. amazingness of it all is making me shocked all over again. I cant handle this twice in 2hours.
Really need your answers on the above; and feedback from ObviousOne.

On February 14 2013 11:35 ObviousOne wrote:
Well, fuck. There goes my shot at staying null.

I am Pops the Doorman and the Vigilante.

I shot WaveofShadow. I thought he was scum. I couldn't get a good read on him based on D1 and I felt it would give me insight into his back-and-forth with Corazon and thus more information about Corazon. Haven't looked yet at Corazon in light of the flip but now that it's out, you know where I was going with it and why I mentioned it earlier.

I don't believe in breadcrumbs (as you can see in the case of Zarepath, they aren't exactly invisible) and from what I've read/experienced in normal games, breadcrumbs are a good way to get yourself killed with a power role.

I also didn't want to give scum a chance at finding a confirmed town for tomorrow so I just kept quiet.

On February 14 2013 13:34 ObviousOne wrote:
I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.

The rebels shall bow before the power of this fully armed and operational battlestation.

On February 14 2013 13:49 cDgCorazon wrote:



Are you fucking kidding me...


+ Show Spoiler +

On February 14 2013 13:51 cDgCorazon wrote:
Just so I can be the first one to point it out...

On February 14 2013 23:14 zarepath wrote:


I don't see how my case prevented consolidated votes; the foremost problem was the lack of a clear, compelling case from ANYONE. I can hardly take responsibility for everyone else's lack of strong cases. I can certainly take responsibility for my last-minute Mocsta vote based mostly on the fact that I didn't feel that strongly about any of the other candidates.

I gave up the shenanigans because I determined that in the long run it would do more harm than good, and that we needed several hours of clarity in order to put forth a good lynch. Honestly, a clear lynch target didn't come out of my fake case. I'm curious to see how Obvious flips tonight, because he visited Wave, and if he were mafia I think that people who completely ignored my case look scummier (they saw the DT claim and decided to kill him at night, although there's no nominal DT).

I was looking for two things -- people who liked my case and would agree with it but not actually do anything, and those who do not really process it or look at it critically. Those would be people who knew that person was town but didn't mind them dying and want to take credit for discussion/participation (ie, scum). This is why Warbaby, Sylencia, and Mandalor have all looked scummy to me. Warbaby immediately latched onto the case with no analysis, it was the first case Syl said anything about at all and he pretty much entirely agreed while adding a minor point to it, and Mandalor did something similar.

Mocsta, actually, first said "quite a few good points in that case," calling some educated assumptions and others anti-town, but not explaining which ones. In the end, he does do an analysis of Wave's defense as opposed to Warbaby's defense and concludes that Wave actually looks town in comparison to Warbaby. This is at a point when the fake lynch still hasn't taken off, it's sitting at 2 votes (myself and geript). So this makes your reaction to my fake case less scummy than that of Warbaby, Sylencia, and Mandalor, imo.

Sn0 "liked the case" but didn't want to lynch an active player D1, but then really disliked his defense. He wasn't super eager to go after him at first, so I didn't see that as scummy. Corazon liked specific parts of it but cautioned that the same points could be brought up against others. Geript is the one who actually broke down my case the most, and while in the end it led to him voting for Wave, he was obviously thinking critically, which led to my town read on him.

So while I could say that as a result of this tactic Warbaby, Sylencia, Mandalor, and Mocsta are three scum and 1 SK, that's obviously going too far. Sometimes town just says they like a case and don't think real hard about it. Perhaps a desperate Warbaby was just happy to see any case that wasn't on him, etc. But I still think that they are strikes against these people.

On February 15 2013 01:00 Sn0_Man wrote:
This whole SK situation is pretty awkward. Due to the lack of counter Vig claim by now, it is clear that we do have an SK. On the other hand, we can't prove that it is ObviousOne. If he were mafia, then there is NO WAY the real SK would claim.

Either way, OO is an anti-town role.

However, at this point his actions still make me think it likely that OO is the serial killer not somebody else. If that is true, then town can think about "manipulating" the SK. Because at this point, the SK wants to kill scum anyway (since killing too much town leaves him vulnerable to scum, who are more coordinated than town). So if we let the SK live on the premise that he will shoot scum, then it is good. However, a) I don't think OO knows who scum is any better than anybody else and b) given the roleblock happening, and assuming it is scum, they can roleblock the SK every night and still kill with impunity until they have lynch-control. Because the SK has veteran status (+1 night life), I'm guessing scum want to lynch him not shoot him.

So we arrive at a funny point where scum wish very much to lynch the SK rather than shoot him, yet I believe it is also in towns best interest to lynch him (because scum fairly clearly has the tools to shut down the SK, and because I'm not convinced the SK will be able/willing to hit scum anyway). As previously mentioned, I don't really see how town can "Control" the SK since our votes are so awful. I mean, if we all ask the SK to NK a different person, he can do whatever he wants to right?

Another point of interest: If you read how C9++ setups are rolled, there can be either 2 OR 3 mafia associated with a 13 player SK game. While I'm aware that this setup is obviously not C9++, I'm assuming the balance would be similar. An interesting note is that I'm guessing the power level of our blue roles is lower than that of those in C9++, which would lead me to believe that a more accurate balance would be 2 scum not 3. This is just speculation.

I will point out that if there are only 2 mafia, I expect that they can guess that there is an SK. In that situation, it might be valuable to look and see if anybody "jumped" to the serial killer conclusion (aka already knew).

Long post, but TL:DR; My vote stays.

On February 15 2013 03:20 warbaby wrote:
I'm not quite done talking about the TestSubject/ObviousOne situation. Right now I believe TS's claim, but I'm not sure about OO's SK claim. A few scenarios I don't think we can rule out (although it's very tenuous logic):

1) Both TS and OO are scum, TS is bussing OO in a very elaborate way. OO is not SK, so we still have to deal with 2 night kills after OO flips scum. This seems very unlikely, but would be a huge problem for town.
2) TS is Watcher and OO is scum. OO is trying to save his ass, and anybody giving credence to his SK cooperation offer may be scum trying to help him survive longer. This is also a big problem for town because SK and 2 scum are still alive after OO dies.
3) Assume the game balance is currently 6:3:1 (town:scum:sk). If we lynch OO and he flips SK, this leaves the game balance at 6:3 (town:scum). D3 will be 5:3. If we mislynch D4, we'll be at 3:3 and lose. So if we commit to lynching OO as SK, we can't mislynch.

Thoughts on other stuff:

+ Show Spoiler [Some Mocsta Meta] +

+ Show Spoiler [Zarepath] +

+ Show Spoiler [Mandalor] +

On February 15 2013 04:06 Sn0_Man wrote:
The 2 replacements are going to get lynched and NK'ed and we are gonna end up in much the same situation as if they were modkilled rofl. (okay we have more info hopefully).

Either way, what now becomes interesting is what happens tomorrow. It will be EITHER 5-3 OR 6-2 depending on setup. However, we can't know which. This is a fascinating situation because I think it may actually call for a no-lynch. Or at least, I don't know yet who I wish to lynch and a No-lynch is remarkably reasonable. In the 5-3 case we go down to 4-3, which is extremely risky but hopefully town should be able to locate the scum in such a situation. In the 6-2 case we go down to 5-2, which isn't even MYLO so town then has a safe mislynch. While town won't know, it doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Keep in mind that in the 3-scum case, mislynch tomorrow is GG.

On February 15 2013 06:09 warbaby wrote:


Note that there is only a mafia roleblocker. If sylencia is not lying, there will still be a mafia roleblocker on N2 (unless we lynch the mafia roleblocker today).

So there's a good chance if TestSubject is not night killed, he will be role blocked instead.

We definitely should not have any more towns claiming blue at this point, in case there is a mafia roleblocker alive N2.

And no, because I used the word "blue" in a post does not mean I'm soft claiming blue =_=

On January 28 2013 09:38 Acrofales wrote:
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.

On February 15 2013 06:13 warbaby wrote:


Since I believe you are Watcher, I am willing to collaborate with you on a Mocsta/Corazon case -- please review the Mocsta filters I linked earlier. But since I believe your claim, we must kill ObviousOne first.

If Obvious flips scum, I'm less likely to believe you are actually Watcher. I'm more than happy to entertain the idea that you've fake claimed and are bussing Obvious. If there is a real Watcher, your fake claim might force the real Watcher to counterclaim, and then you can kill the real Watcher. Watcher is a powerful role and it might be worth scum trying to trade a goon for a Watcher by fake claiming.

On February 15 2013 06:43 Sn0_Man wrote:


Big reads time TS893. Here you call our WB. Cora, your lead scum read as of like 3 posts ago spent all day yesterday campaigning HARD for WB's lynch (probably harder than scum would dare bus D1 but thats WIFOM).

Who is scum and who is (bad) town?

As a confirmed townie, at least we know your reads aren't scum-biased (although that says nothing about their correctness).

On February 15 2013 07:50 cDgCorazon wrote:


Well if there's literally nothing I can do to change your mind, that's called confirmation bias.

You've said that my actions D1 and N1 have been scummy. I'm guessing you don't agree with my reasoning to vote Glurio.

Let's say I am scum. I've been tunneling WB (I'll admit it) almost all of D1. Why would I switch to Glurio so late and in such an obviously bad place if I were scum? Why would I go and cement the lynch of a townie when I could just sit on WB (assuming he is town/that I am scum) and everyone would be ok with that.

I'm saying your arguments are WIFOM is because you are saying WB is town, so I must be scum for going after him. Either that or you think I am scum, so WB is automatically town to you. Either way is just so much WIFOM, and failing to take into account that town does not know who the other towns are. Town wanting to vote out other towns is a possibility in this game, don't forget that.

I called for the town to lynch an active voice, and no one responded to my call. As such, I was forced to choose between 2/3 sub-optimal lynches. I never said I was happy with the lynch.

The problem I have with your argument (once again) is that you're only focusing on me and my vote when 2 other people contributed to lynch Glurio, and 5-6 votes were wasted. Please answer those questions as well, because I'm starting to get the feeling you are tunneling me and getting confirmation bias, which is bad.

I'm saying your arguments are WIFOM is because you are saying WB is town, so I must be scum for going after him.

On February 15 2013 05:58 TestSubject893 wrote:
Corazon still has my eye as the scummiest player (other than OO). When I read through D1 I kept asking myself "how does this turn into a glurio lynch?". The answer was Corazon's vote. It made glurio the first to 3 votes, effectively guarenteeing that either glurio or sevryn would be lynched. I also read the begining of his N1 will as "Look at me, I'm town just like everyone else". The first part is just more long-winded than it needs to be, of course you think you can die tonight if you're town; there's no need to explain that.

On February 15 2013 07:57 Mandalor wrote:
Could you please just ask me questions?
I don't know what to say really. I know I've been inactive for real reasons but I actually had time to read the thread for some time now. Other than voting for OO which is the only option to do now, I have nothing to say. There hasn't been any real insight in the last post in my eyes.
His whole buddying up with me ("Mandalor has the tools blabla") sounds more like scum to me than SK, but either way it's a good choice.

Honestly, I don't know what to say at this point. Please ask me questions. I'll be here for another hour and I'll be back in another 11.

On February 15 2013 06:52 Mocsta wrote:
An an aside; I am starting to really not like Mandalor; pretty shitty filter AND not scum hunting from what I saw.

Mandalor
Please share top scum read; why; and lead some pressure
I want to see a case too, if you don't mind -says more about you then the target.

On February 15 2013 18:45 Mocsta wrote:
Its actually a common occurrence to ask for shorter cycles when a lynch is universally agreed.

If town was actively conversing than yes. Keep the cycle full.

But don't try and bullshit me as if lots of flowing conversation occurred.


P.s. thanks for ignoring my succinct reasoning for your scum slip.
Do u always cherry pick what you respond to?

On February 15 2013 23:11 Mocsta wrote:
Testuser: I am not sure if we are reading the same thread here?

warbaby

• consistently insinuates associations
  
• consistently misrepresents information
  
• consistently cherry picks a sentence in a wall of text
  
• consistently ignores rational argument directed his way
  
• & consistently infers his actions are pro-town; whilst being in complete contradiction to his original "promises"

If you want to keep looking at corazon I won't stop you. - I said before it is his job to convince you of his alignment.

---

However; if you want to assume corazon and I are a team; I am going to have to stop you right there..

---

Firstly, the only reason association was brought up was because you were looking into corazon; and found it odd I did not want to concentrate on him.

This has now been explained twice
Again, why is that scum-alignment indicative? You are working off associations founded upon assumptions. Mafia is about flipping one player and then making the associations.

Lets work through the logic.
Corazon flips town; then what? The entire association case falls apart; unless you are warbaby, then I become de facto scum. Anyone that targets warbaby is scum right...

Corazon flips scum; again, then what? How does my interaction today prove I am in a scum team?
(Simply, that evidence on it own does not; and fuck me if I am going to have my first mislynch under this condition)

The same logic applies with me as the lynch candidate.

Fact: One interaction does not make two people scum.
If you were not 'essentially' confirmed town; I could say you and Sn0_Man are a scum team because of the glowing review you gave him.... But I didn't (and neither did others), because that is an illogical stance to assume - just like the situation present.

---

Secondly, the only reason this item of association was re-raised was due to the misrepresentation of warbaby

Do you want to know why this is an example of misrepresentation?

• Some of those counts are from pre-game
  
• Some of those counts are from quotes I have responded too
  
• Some of those hits are from nested quotes when responding to OTHERS

I am not going to comment on the times I referenced corazon directly, because frankly, it does not matter.

In reality; I did not mention corazon much throughout Day1. Just as there are others that did not catch my attention.
This is the way of a game of forum-mafia. I can go into anyone's filter and find people they have not questioned.

---

What is the point, and why is this alignment indicative - without a red flip

---

Secondly, the only reason this item of association was re-raised was due to the misrepresentation of warbaby

On February 15 2013 23:28 Mocsta wrote:

TestUser, can you please clarify who "we" is.
I assume you imply town; if so, I am genuinely surprised by this; as I thought I was a proponent of town continuing scum hunting.

Further, I am confused by the statement in general, even though it is written plain and simple.
Are you inferring: that you disagree with the above comments I directed to warbaby?

---

If you think his questions are reasonable fine; I believe I addressed a majority of them regardless.

However: What is concerning to me TestUser; is that you do not seem to notice (or case) warbaby is actually the one who blatantly ignores any criticisms/comments directed his way.

I simply do not understand how when two people react, and exhibit the same behaviour; one is reasonable, the other becomes 'something else'?

On February 16 2013 08:20 cDgCorazon wrote:
TS you need to tell me what you want me to answer from my reasoning behind voting Glurio. You're not giving me any room to defend myself. The reason I'm sounding like a broken record is because you won't give me any room to defend myself. Do you want me to keep requoting my justification post? I don't think so. Ask me specific questions about my vote. Saying you don't like it and then not asking me further questions is a scummy case.

I did not say anything about you being "untrustworthy", I said your case on me did not have any merit because of the association crap.

---

I don't understand your logic behind the difference between Warbaby and I is that I act calm under pressure and WB doesn't. Why would a town not act calm under pressure if they have nothing to hide? You have some backwards logic here.

Being all nervous under pressure= You have something to hide
Not being nervous under pressure= You either don't have something to hide or you are really good at keeping calm

It's a null point that invites a whole bunch of WIFOM.

On February 16 2013 08:55 cDgCorazon wrote:



Why is it "damned if you do, damned if you don't"? That's the same stuff I did that took all of the momentum out of the WB case...

On February 16 2013 10:29 warbaby wrote:
For reference, here's geript's case on Mocsta. Would this be enough to elicit a defensive kill?

Geript has a point. While geript's early vote on me was odd, but why did Mocsta immediately jump on board? His other points about Mocsta are basically part of what I was talking about last night. Mocsta was being really pushy and manipulative D1, which I extend to a meta case based on his scum play in XXXV.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on another Mocsta witch hunt, it would be tunneling. I just want to bring highlight this now that we have info from the OO flip.

On February 16 2013 10:59 cDgCorazon wrote:


I don't think it's enough to elicit a defensive kill for certain, it certainly was an attack on Mocsta. I think it's too hard to tell for sure without going into a whole lot of WIFOM.

However, I think that Warbaby's own criticism in Mocsta's play "being manipulative and pushy D1" can't be place as part of his scum meta. He acted exactly the same in XXXIV as town. He got massive amounts of confirmation bias and really put the town in an atmosphere where it was his way or the highway, which led to several mislynches and let a lurker scum (Sylencia) slip by and win the game without really taking any pressure.

I think Mocsta's game has been half old Mocsta, half new Mocsta. At times he has been very patient with people and let others play the game as well, but at other times he has tried to be the mayor.

While I do not enjoy an inconsistent game out of anyone, I'm not too fond of Mocsta's aggressive side (I locked horns with him about 85% of D1 in XXXIV). I'm happy with the patient Mocsta I have seen, and I'm really just trying to stay out of his way and play my own game. However, he is trying to intertwine himself with me a lot. It's suspicious, but it's obviously not enough to say he is scum.

On February 16 2013 15:02 cDgCorazon wrote:


Why do you think I proposed the question to everyone if I knew the answer? I really don't. His biggest read was me. If I had killed him because he was on the right track, why would I be bringing attention to it?

You need to step up your play. Being confirmed town doesn't mean you can sit here and tunnel. Whereas I put out a question to facilitate some discussion, you are just trying to point everything back to me.

I never said I thought Mocsta was town, I said that I could not find any huge differences between his town and his scum play, and that I was trying to avoid him. You are trying to put us together, when in fact besides our votes for Glurio, most of my actions have been either from my behalf of the behalf of someone other than Mocsta.

I propose a question to you: Who is trying harder to associate themselves with the other, me or Mocsta?

On February 20 2013 12:14 cDgCorazon wrote:


Literally, your one contribution to the game was getting the sk in your blue role. The rest of your game was spent tunneling me.

I almost asked the host to IP test you and Geript because you two were making the same exact argument, the same one that I had refuted 1000 times and yet you still pushed me on it.

When you finally told me that my actions "weren't justifiable", it was ridiculously pissing me off because you kept pushing me on the same thing and gave me no room to scrutinize your argument or even to defend myself from it.

In your eyes, I was only scum, and that's a terrible mentality to take as town. You really just claimed tracker and once you had the SK you sat around and threw geript's arguments at me. You refused to even give him credit or admit that they were the exact same arguments that Geript used.

I was about to make a case on you because it looked so obvious that scum TS would've killed Geript and made it look like they were killing someone on the right track. The fact that you were confirmed town both nullified the case and made me frustrated that the only thing you decided to do in your power was tunnel me. I'm not going to sugarcoat this: It's shit play.

You just basically took the fact that you were 99.9% confirmed town to sit there and make shitty arguments. Had you not claimed, I would've pushed for your lynch.

On February 21 2013 12:33 geript wrote:
No offense to either side, I though Mocsta was scum off and on. Sure he got most of a free ride in that almost nobody questioned him or his motives. But that's not his fault. Part of the problem in the game IMO was that nobody questioned the direction of the town at almost any point and Mocsta abused that all to hell.

Part of becoming a better player in every game is learning when to question game state. When the most active/loudest voices persist, you really need to ask yourself why they're persisting. Are these people who are being manipulated? Are these people who are actively leading the town to bad decisions? What's the purpose for scum leaving them around? Sure you might argue that's all a circumstantial case, but the cumulative effects of being wrong and loud add up to something. Personally I was very surprised when neither Cora nor Mocsta wanted to discuss cases day 2 as that seemed very anti-town. I was surprised when nobody put them on blast for it.

I was actually kinda mad dying night 1 as I felt like I was going to be building momentum to steal the shared mayor position from Mocsta/Cora and get the town headed in a more effective direction. I was also mad at myself for not sharing my suspicions of Mocsta even if I couldn't find the case I wanted to make on him.