Newbie Mini Mafia XXVII - Page 31

On September 21 2012 09:15 thrawn2112 wrote:
for the record, I got a pm from marv saying I was roleblocked

On September 21 2012 09:19 RemedySC wrote:


What are you implying with this post?

On September 21 2012 09:21 kushm4sta wrote:


I think he's implying that he got roleblocked.

On September 21 2012 09:15 kushm4sta wrote:
So this mean there probably is no sk right?
I can see scenarios where scum or sk got blocked, or they both nk the same person. But until we actually see evidence of SK we should treat this game like there is no sk.

On September 21 2012 07:40 kushm4sta wrote:
#fos thrawn

K guys I did the legwork on this monster of a filter. Tell me what you think.

1 Being active when he said he'd be lurking

Thrawn was quite reluctant to join this game. Before the game started he warned us that he would be lurking more than usual.
Except that hasn't happened. In fact, he has been extremely active.
Imagine this, thrawn, in his 4th game, finally gets mafia, the role he has dreamt of ever since he learned about the game. That is something that could spur activity.

Obviously regardless of my alignment I am in a position to be posting up the same amount that's been my meta so far. I did not think I would have computer access this game but that has changed. Your argument is basically that before the game even started I lied about how much posting I could do somehow knowing or hoping against odds that I would be mafia and I could use that to trick people into making a false meta read.

Well I don't know the specifics of your situation. I'm assuming some brokeback mountain type scenario, in which you can get to a computer if you really want to but it's kind of a bother. A mafia roll might give you that nudge to make you put in the extra effort to be more active.

2 His multitude of paper thin cases.
These are his accusations throughout the game so far.
1 fos sonic for making a survey

That happened at the very start of the game. Of course any accusation at that point is going to be weak. The accusation was based on me seeing a simialar action from when he was scum in our last game. I didn't see the point of the surveys. Last game as scum he proposed that people make read lists which I thought that was a scummy tactic. He was scum that game leading me to think he was doing a similar thing in this one.

When bringing up these cases, I didn't focus on any in particular. That is because it's not the cases themselves that are really suspect. It's how freely you accuse so many different people, and most of your cases are based on very little.

2 fos killing for saying he doesn't like FOS

I didn't fos him for him saying he didn't like FOS. I fos'd him for coming into the thread at a point when people were alread makking and sharing reads and he made a fluff post.

3 vote sharrant for saying a bunch of different stupid shit

bunch of stupid shit = making a vote for debears based on a paragraph of reasoning and saying he wants to force debears to role claim. Later I stuck to my vote because he was talking about a secret plan that he wasn't willing to share with us. I assumed he was suggesting he was a blue role and I even tried to think through what possible things a blue player could do in that situation and I came up with nothing so his claim that he had a plan seemed like a complete lie.

Although I disagree with it, I do not think that suspecting sharrant was scummy. Definitely your most justified read.

Yet debears does not earn an fos even though he gives them out like candy...
then d2
4 fos debears for copying his arguments (d1 it was ok d2 it's not?)

First you say i am supicisous for not fosing debears and when I do it makes me suspicious?
It's that you did fos him n1 for doing the same thing he did d1. Why not fos him d1 then?

5 atreides he tells me I need to look at for being confused about no lynch

I don't see what's scummy about that
I looked this over and I understand your argument better now. Correct me if I'm wrong but he said he was afk yet he was there 1 minute after lynch. Is that it? And I do see the scumhunt logic in that.

6 remedy who is suddenly out of no where his TOP scumread. Thrawn's case: he made a commented on a stupid scumteam thought I had. Also he didn't vote for a bandwagon d1. And that's his "biggest read"...

I've already told you that my case on remedy isn't because he agreed with a stupid post. here and also read my post right after it.

About your case against remedy: I disagree that voting for me is a scumtell. As for the second part of your argument, are you saying that his one comment about the probably scumteam means that he was willing to lynch 2 confirmed town? I do not see the connection. Just because he comments on the plausibility of a scumteam doesn't team he's ready to lynch all of them.

Here is him yelling at killingtime for making a thin case:

But less than an hour earlier thrawn makes a case also based on only 1 sentence of justification:


Yes it's hypocritical but that doesnt mean scum
So if it added to your suspicion of killingtime, why can't it add to my suspicion of you? Pointing out a scumtrait in someone else does not make you immune to being accused for that trait.

3 His total lapse of logic after sharrant role claims.

What does everyone think about this plan huh? Well what I think is that you are fishing to see if town will follow this madness. Cubu is basically confirmed town and you want to lynch him anyway.

I didn't try to push it much further than that. I think it was stutters who pointed out what the worst possible outcome of that plan was and I dropped it after that and started contributing to the lurker lynch discussion
Of course you wouldn't push it more than that. You wanted to see how willing town was to go along with it. When you realized we weren't willing, you dropped it immediately.

4 the real story of d1
Thrawn is on my ass about a redirection of a killing lynch onto drazak. Well that did not happen. The real redirection, which no one has even talked about, is from debears to sharrant.

Where did I accuse you of redirecting from killing to drazak?
You accused me of voting for drazak even though I admitted to killing being the better lynch. Not exactly redirection though, you're right.

Debears had a majority vote. Thrawn defends debears, pushes sharrant, and suddenly sharrant has the majority vote.

That's an association case so it's assuming that at bare minimum, debears is confirmed scum in order for me to be scum.
Remember the first game we played together? Shadysands got town to change their vote from mafia to town. I'm suggesting you may have done something similar. It's just that we had a majority on debears, and then for some reason that majority just disappeared, and I'm wondering why.

On September 21 2012 08:22 Stutters695 wrote:
I brought up the no lynch because Sharrant mentioned he was one vote away from being hammered (I think that's what l1 means) and when I checked the rules post on voting it didn't say anything about a no-vote which is essential to know should we hit mylo and I'd rather not risk noticing it now but not asking until it's relevant since we might not get an answer instantly. I'll be periodically phone posting tonight and back on my pc tomorrow (real time EST).

On September 21 2012 11:42 kushm4sta wrote:
I just want to update the thread on my thoughts since I'm going to be pretty afk for a while (sleep then class then work).

Thrawn: im waiting for other people's input. I have to say though claiming roleblock like that seems pretty town to me. 1 I dont think it's a lie and 2 why would scum share that information. I don't know what to think about it honestly.

Debears: I read through this guy's filter, tried to expand my case against him to be more than just "thrawn copycat," but I came up with nothing to say. I mean his recent play doesn't impress me but it doesn't set off any whistles either.

There are a lot of people who have been very off my radar and I need to give them a closer look. Killingtime mainly but there are others.