Newbie Mini Mafia XXII

On July 20 2012 23:57 ghost_403 wrote:
Less than a million billion years.

There are still three slots left. I'd guess in the next couple of days?

On July 27 2012 05:52 Promethelax wrote:
Hello all and welcome to Newbie 22! I'm excited to finally be in this game.

I have, much to my delight, rolled town for the first time in a normal mini. I hope to be able to prove to you that I am as innocent as most of you and much more innocent than our scum friends lead by Marv who, shockingly, rolled scum for the millionth time.

On policy: I don't like policy lynches. I feel that town can do better than that and we should lynch scum not liars or lurkers. It is always possible to build cases and to try to lynch scum instead of basing our attacks on a black and white policy.

Keir is right about the town RB though, you should hold your power until d2 at least since blocking a blue role can throw us off immensely. Do not RB until you are sure that someone is scum! If you have a perfect read d1 go ahead but I doubt you do.

Also Keir: I promise to spell your name right this time.

aRyuujin: since you are here would you be kind enough to bless us with one of your Haiku to start some discussion, no need to be silent just because you feel there is nothing to talk about.

On July 27 2012 08:12 Shady Sands wrote:
From a logic standpoint, it makes sense to always have a lynch target each day, because voting patterns, voting times, and the order in which players vote are some of the most important clues that the town can use.

For example, if the target turns out to be green or blue, then we can backtrack and start seeing who started the bandwagoning and go from there. If the target turns out to be red, we can see who did the last minute voting or tried to swing the balance away from them, and add those to the list.

But if we simply go for a no-lynch, there's no pressure on the scum to actually put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

On July 27 2012 13:29 Shady Sands wrote:
When you look at all that, and the weak logic against Keir, then what you see is the following pattern:

Mordanis first claims that Keir is the likeliest candidate for lynching because he a likely candidate to be red. Then he backs off and claims that Keir could go red or green. Then he argues that we should lynch controversial candidates first. The point is, lynching controversial candidates would be fine, if it were not for the fact that Mordanis is the only one stirring up controversy about Keir. This totally smacks of a Red finding out his original tactic for generating a bandwagon has failed, acknowledging that he is the only one arguing for a lynch, and then stating that because he is the only one arguing for a lynch, the person is "controversial" and should be lynched.

What?

On July 27 2012 18:51 Golbat wrote:
The reason I backed off of Mord is because I felt like I may have been pushing too strongly against him based on his first bad read. I didn't want to appear to be scum myself, so I backed off for the moment. I still have a sneaking suspicion about him that he may be mafia, but I didn't want to lynch myself by pushing too hard on a bad read.

I feel like i've been talking in circles around mord, "He's scum, no he's town, no he might be scum, no he's probably town", so I feel like I need to take a definite stance on the matter, and that is #FoS Mordanis

On July 29 2012 08:09 Shady Sands wrote:
Another thing to note:

Zorkmid and Obvious both ended up shifting to Golbat with minimal analysis at all. I'd say Zork looks the quietest between the two, but Obvious also strikes me as a little odd too, since he popped into the thread 10 minutes after Golbat's lynch without commenting once in the prior six hours, even though he was trying to get me lynched and people were busy bandwagoning Golbat. Normally, I'd expect someone who was trying to aim for a lynch on someone to at least argue their case before the lynch when the town was heading in the opposite direction.

I have a few hunches on where we should go next, but I'd like everyone to read through the above posts first.

On July 29 2012 13:19 Obvious.660 wrote:
Zorkmid's vote comes off to me as a bandwagon vote. Evidence against Golbat was that Golbat finally settled on a decision for his best scum read?Pretty arbitrary reason to vote for someone. Can you explain what you mean by town vibe in that post? (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15625737) I could understand not having a definite scum read from it, but implying the opposite it a bit premature.

On July 30 2012 08:44 Keirathi wrote:

I'm pretty saddened by your lack of participation so far. You've shown the ability to make constructive posts. Therefor, I question your vote onto Golbat without much in the way of explanation. Was it just to avoid a no-lynch, or did you actually think he was scum?

Also, this quote bothers me:

I am curious as to why the possibility of no-lynching makes you feel less certain about lynching liars and lurkers. Not stating a solid stance just because of the possibility of a no-lynch doesn't make much sense to me.

On July 30 2012 07:58 goodkarma wrote:
Okay. I'm putting together my notes and writing my long-promised suspect list.

Wouldn't usually waste a post stating this, but one-line fluff posts seem to be all the rage.. -_- (MrMedic and Zorkmid...)

Tbh it shouldn't really matter exactly how no one died last night. Now that Golbat has flipped, and day two has begun, let's not waste any time getting our cases put together.