Newbie Mini Mafia LIV

On March 26 2014 21:00 Pixalated wrote:
I really am not sure about this scumbait play and what it means. On one hand it's an easy way to have a free out after making bad reads and getting called out for it, but it seems really stupid for scum to do, and I am not sure if scum would stick out their head like that.



Actually can you explain this. You say you yourself feel suspicious of OK's first post, yet you yourself ask why Robik thinks its out of place???

On March 27 2014 01:44 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Okay, going down the filter list.

OnceKing brings up policy.
I kind of disagree with bringing it up so early, but I think it was a town mindset that he did it.
I read town.

Eden is clearly town.

Val hasn't been doing much, other than questioning the lurker policy, (kind of like me) so no read on him.

LT clears Val in this post:


Even though he hasn't done anything. Why would he do that? But wait, there's more.
His next post is this:

He demotes Val to leaning town. Maybe he now realizes that he was too obvious in pushing Val for town.
If he's mafia, Val's also mafia.

He also makes a scumtrap that's horribly planned out.
Top mafia in my eyes.

Robik's playing aggressive, as he normally does.
He's been pressuring pretty much everybody, as a town should do.
The one thing that I don't like is that he got a town read on my on joke posts before the game. that's strange.
I read town.

Pixalated is probably town. He's trying to logically put together the picture, and he's a bit quiet. He's suspicious of the right guys, he's cleared the right guys. I say town, with blue role. The blue role is because he's quiet.

Cav seems mafia, with the same reasons as Robik and Eden.

RJ is town, good reads, good logic.

So it's either Cav + someone who I misread, or LT and Val.

On March 29 2014 09:35 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Argh. I meant to post before night ends, but my nap lasted longer than I anticipated lol.

oh and robik survived n1 gg, clear mafia



Alright, looking at nightkills, Eden is the super obvious choice, doesn't change much for my analysis. In fact, it just cuts out the comments I was going to make about Eden.

Day 1 is characterized by what I feel are three MAJOR events.

1) The OK lurker policy, Robik's wtf, and the subsequent push onto Cavalinho for following Robik on it

2) My own fail post and the subsequent shitstorm.

3) The Cavalinho parity claim.

I think the first two situations have been beaten to death, though I'll answer any remaining questions people have about the second point. The brunt of my analysis will be on

Cavalinho put out the parity cop claim just to spite fking Eden, and I can understand it. More than understand it, I did the same thing because it was fking tiresome.

Let's look how people fell on that.

Pixalated wasn't online at the time because Singapore.
Eden kept pushing, and was tunneling on Cavalinho and Robik being scum together (this is a clusterfuck I want to return to later when I have more time to analyze the slapfight more throoughly).
Robik posted a spirited defense of Cavalinho, saying we shouldn't lynch the parity cop claim. Also yelling at Eden. I still don't understand how the parity cop claim can just sort itself out before Day 3, and even then it doesn't necessarily become useful.
Valenius states that:

Which is actually a pretty bold statement since no-one else had said anything decisive, and I think it leans town.

I do want an explanation as to why you didn't move it onto Cavalinho, however, as while I understand why you didn't move it onto me, but not Cav. You just over half-an hour stated that:


Then, RolandJarvis is online and posts:

He doesn't explicitly take a side here (instead keeps on voting Cavalinho).
And what were your thoughts about the whole affair? You didn't post any thoughts about it despite being online at the time.

OK then posts that he disagrees with Robik's reasoning that "the parity cop claim will sort itself out". He doesn't take further action outside of this, as of yet. Likely thinking over his course of action.

RJ then posts this:

I believe everyone in the game has by this time been accounted for outside of myself (I noted previously that my phone was dead), and Pixalated (who stated he was sleeping and wasn't around for the lynch). It seems to imply that you still wanted to see Cavalinho lynched, as you were worried about vote switches off of him?

Then we get

Which is fking useless. No stand, no reason to post it outside to basically signal hes online and aware of what's happening, and just makes town more confused and uncertain. He doesn't change his vote on Cavalinho. Scummy or useless town contribution.

Valenius responds to it and says:

Which raises the question as to why you don't post anything afterwards regarding the Cavalinho lynch (either changing your play, taking a firm stand on it before Day 1 ended, or commenting on later actions), as you were clearly online at the time.

I then make a post that states I have a short amount of time to check and reply to the mafia thread + Show Spoiler [RL reason] +.

OK then posts his vote switch from Valenius to Cavalinho, specifically citing RJ's concern that people would vote-switch off of Cavalinho because of the claim, and stating he doesn't think it can resolve itself.

At this point I finally finish skimming the thread, have no fking clue what to say about the claim, and thought to myself: I might as well consolidate because I basically think there's no fking way this will end well because it's a fking parity cop, and we could be LYLO if we try to accommodate it.

I DISAGREE THAT THIS IS A TOWN PLAY. Neutral play at best in my own review of the action, since it was posted after OK posted his justification (I posted I was online probably like 15s before he posted his justification and voteswitch).



I agree with this, though at the time there were 4 votes on Cavalinho, so it would take 2 vote switches, as opposed to 1, to see myself lynched. I actually like the skepticism here. I don't see how it can be anything but a neutral at best move, especially as I did telegraph that I was most likely not going to be able to post again before the deadline.


tl;dr???
I feel really scummy about sqrt's post for obvious reasons. It doesn't discuss "what should we do", it just incites doubt about "is he REALLY a cop?" (like we're going to fking know until he flips). He doesn't change his vote or anything, so I'm really not sure what to make of it.

Valenius' posts confuse me here and I'm not sure how to interpret his play; his first post seems towny to me, but the second, combined with a lack of followup, confuses this read: especially as he said he didn't mind voting Cavalinho over myself.

RJ voiced a valid concern about possible vote-switching off of Cavalinho (but apparently did not foresee the vote-switching ON to Cavalinho), and seemed to be for the continued lynching of Cavalinho claim or no claim. I agree with it, but I can't read much else from him here.

OK does voteswitch onto Cavalinho first (followed by myself like 5 minutes later).

I am uneasy about Robik's play, and will be posting another analysis of it later today. This was already more work than I intended.

I have more general reads and proposals coming in the next wall-o-text