Newbie Mini Mafia VII

On April 03 2012 17:17 Lyter wrote:
Well I was doing this called sleeping :D

On April 03 2012 00:30 BlueyD wrote:
I'm sc... Er, I mean townie! Green townie. That's it. Don't lynch me.

Lynch Nova_Terra instead. He's scum. He proved it last game.

On April 03 2012 03:52 BlueyD wrote:
I'm just playing around before the game really picks up and I have to be more serious.

By the way, my name is BlueyD, and I've been a mafiaholic for... How many years already?

Nahh, this is my second game ever. My first game's filter can be found here: SNMM IX BlueyD filter

I was townie and was in the game until the end. We lost. You can see me both on the offensive and the defensive in there, so it can be a useful resource. I won't tell you how to interpret the filter; if you're curious, go see for yourself.

----------

That's pretty much all I have to say today. Given that an inactive not voting on the last day caused our doom last game, I'm all for lynching the most inactive person unless a good case comes up. So, post your greetings and introductions, ladies!

On April 04 2012 04:44 BlueyD wrote:


It's no excuse, but it's part of the explanation for the lack of activity, the other part being it hasn't been 24 hours since the start of the game, and some people might not even know it began. But then again, we've got a lot of one-line heroes here.

It's the start of the game, you can't say "let's lynch on information" when you have no information, and you're certainly not motivating people to speak up when they could just shut up and give you no information to work with.

This is why people threaten to lynch on lurking at the start of a game, even when they'd rather lynch on info: this is how we get information to work with in the first place. Another way is to threaten to lynch on meta, but good luck doing that in a newbie game.

To those who openly say they like the idea of an info lynch: How do you intend to get that information in the first place?

To those who side with the idea of a lurker lynch so far, given the lack of info: Welcome to the club! Have a coupon for free coffee.

----------

My reply of epic proportions to era's attempt to make a case on me (be ready for my first wall of text of the game, guys):

[spoiler]LOL[/spoiler]

On April 05 2012 05:35 BlueyD wrote:
Yikes, Lyter, that was a bit late if you're hoping to save yourself... But on the good side, I'll add my vote to yours right now.

##Unvote: Lyter
##Vote: Gossemerr

That first post of Gossemerr you quote isn't just contradicted by what he does later on... But mostly, it's also an acknowledged metagame change!

I'm not sure what could possibly have brought that metagame change, either. The guy we lynched day 1 last game can hardly be called a lurker - It's true that he contributed nothing, but his presence was known and seen by all. He was a spammy town not a lurker, kind of like era this game. And one of the 2 lurkiest players in the game did turn out to be scum. That doesn't seem to justify a metagame switch at all!

Lynch him! Lyyyynch him! *diabolical laugh*

Ahem, I mean... I'm comfortable enough lynching Gossemerr on meta and info we have now.

On April 05 2012 07:57 BlueyD wrote:
In defense of Gossemerr:

It's true, as Gossemerr says, that his early voting does fit his meta from last game. He was also the first to put a vote on there.

Lyter flipping green really says nothing on Goss. If Goss hadn't put the first vote, someone else would have. Lyter was hands down the most inactive at that point, so the act of putting the first vote on him is totally fine by me.

----------

And now, the bad...

Actual quote:
Anyway, before I was for lynching lurkers D1, but I think my mind has changed. Lurkers are not really a problem D1 considering they have been town usually in my experience. I would like to make an educated lynch on someone who is leaning scum this time around, or a no lynch if nobody fits the bill.

What I don't understand is why he went "okay guys, I've got a new stance on lynching lurkers this game!" with an explanation that made no real sense, and then just acted the same way he did last game anyway (as he brings up himself). That's where the contradiction is for me.

That's not a very heavy case, admittedly, but on day 1 it's difficult to do a lot better than this.

Please note that my reasons for this flip were different than the 3 other guys', though they sprang from the same Gossemerr post. Awaiting his defense now.

On April 06 2012 00:14 BlueyD wrote:


1.Gossemerr, I'm being attacked for making jokes now, really? I'll tell you, there's two reasons I'm making jokes. First... it's fun! Second... I wanted to see who jumped on them to try to make a case look better than it is. Grats, you did.

----------

Lyter's reason:
- OMG Goss says he doesn't want to lynch lurkers and then puts a vote on me for lurking!

My reasons:
- Goss says he's meta-switching and his reason makes no sense to me
- Goss then seems to revert to old meta despite saying he'd change

Are they the same? Lyter's reason and my 2nd reason are similar, I'll grant, and I'm ready to accept your defense against it: you were just pressuring. 2.Do tell us you're ready to switch your vote away if he posts something of quality next time you pressure-vote, however, not just "Gotta start somewhere." Not switching afterwards is entirely justifiable as well given the situation: gotta save your own skin.

The first still looks to me like something scum would do, and that's the bigger one of the two for me: You suddenly decided lynching a lurker is bad, when one of the big 2 lurkers was scum last game. Explain. You haven't even come close from doing so, instead choosing to attack me on jokes. 3.

On April 03 2012 09:40 Gossemerr wrote:
Was not expecting this to start so soon...

Anyway, before I was for lynching lurkers D1, but I think my mind has changed. Lurkers are not really a problem D1 considering they have been town usually in my experience. I would like to make an educated lynch on someone who is leaning scum this time around, or a no lynch if nobody fits the bill.

Regarding the stuff on BlueyD: doesn't seem very scummy to. First was an obvious joke, next few are just explaining things after being called out.

On April 05 2012 11:07 Gossemerr wrote:
Okidok. I will take the blame for that wagon. Even though I didn't even make a case so there shouldn't have been one in the first place. I voted to pressure him to talk. I WAS planning on retracting my vote if he said something of worth. Life stuff got in the way and couldn't post until earlier. I would have retracted my vote, but if I did -> I would die and it would be a for sure mis-lynch. And yeah my mind has changed since EVERY SINGLE time I have voted to lynch a hardcore lurker D1, they have been town. How the hell didn't I explain my stance in that quote BlueyD? I never said I wouldn't pressure peeps.

Moving on, I'm going to post an analysis tonight after food, ect.

On April 06 2012 04:21 era wrote:


How would you saying that you will change your vote if lyter post something of quality make him not post anything of quality? I don't understand please explain yourself.

On April 06 2012 04:54 BlueyD wrote:
My reply to Goss, let's make this short this time... Hah, who am I kidding.

I would imagine last game is what makes the difference in your views on lynching lurkers, hence why I'm not looking at what you've played before that. If the defining events had happened before that, then your stance would also have changed before that, and you wouldn't be saying "I've changed my mind!" this game. If at least we had lynched a 'hardcore lurker' last game and he had turned out to be townie, then I would have understood you're changing due to an accumulation of events, with last game at the turning point.

But the guy we lynched wasn't a 'hardcore lurker', to use your term. He posted a lot! I would say our 2 D1 lynch candidates (both townies) were on the chopping block due to terrible play (useless lists, spammy 2-liners, bad logic, strange voting pattern in one case, etc), not really due to lurking. They had legit cases on their butts day 1, unlike lurkers that just get lynched because "well, he's not posting much at all". Meanwhile, one of the 2 hardcore lurkers that game turned out to be scum after all.

So that's why I keep 'repeating': I'm not entirely satisfied with 2 parts of your explanation.

1. The part where you consider games other than the last, which couldn't possibly be the catalyst for your switch now.
2. The part where you describe last game's day 1 as a lurker lynch when it wasn't.

Nova might call this a 'tiny part of your metagame' but it still seems strange to me.

----------

The important part isn't the jokes, it's the analysis. I'm more at ease this game so I let myself joke around a little at the start/end of posts, but otherwise I would imagine the core of my posts - what you're supposed to be looking at most and taking seriously - looks about the same, and I'm still scumhunting actively.

----------

A reminder to others that Gossemerr is not my only suspicion, and the town will quickly scope in on you if you're trying to hide or posting only fluff. Goss has an advantage over all of you guys: He's active. I'll try to take a look at our less active players tonight.

I'm out for now, back later.

On April 07 2012 09:21 Nova_Terra wrote:
On April 07 2012 00:14 era wrote:
EBWOP: BlueyD you seem to know the profile of a blue and how to read for them? Maybe you already knew he was a blue before he got killed?


WAIT before i go i just noticed this gem.
i find this funny, it really looks to me that era is trying very very hard to make blueyd seem suspicious. just look.
I'm not sure what is worse, the constant WIFOM, the fact that blues are generally classified as holding back to avoid drawing attention to themselves, or my personal favorite, that you cant know who a blue if even if you are mafia(you have just as good a shot at guessing if you are town)
Era seems to be trying sooo hard to get blueyd lynched. even if it doesnt quite make sense and is entirely WIFOM. At this point, if era is scum, blueyD isnt, at least in my mind. tomorrow i'm going to see if that makes sense the other way around.

On April 08 2012 07:38 LazinCajun wrote:
Nuts.