EPTGoing to be my first game here, looking forward to it
Newbie Mini Mafia XXVII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
Going to be my first game here, looking forward to it | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On September 18 2012 15:22 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Maffia XXVII survey (not filling it in will make you look scummy): 1. Will you be around for lynch time? 2. How active do you plan on being? 3. How many games have you obsed? 4. Is this your first game playing? 5. If not, how many games have you played? 6. Is this your first time playing as scum? 1) Most likely yes 2) I'll usually be active on evenings / nights every day 3) None 4) Yes 6) Maybe One thing that stuck me is that KillingTime doesn't agree with FOS, but votes debears in the same post - without justification! I'm not convinced kush is scum. The serial killer argument is a stretch, as he'd have to have balls of steel to purposely draw so much attention to himself. He's said some silly things (like asking for NK) but it seems to be his style. I'll be back with another (and longer) post soon | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
I'm not sure what to make of debears. Trying to establish thrawn as town is bad play, whether he's town or mafia himself. Right now I'm leaning towards it being an illogical claim, rather than an attempt for mafia to blend in. The latter just seems too simple and obvious. I don't think there's enough to make a strong claim for debears being town/mafia yet. It's very possible that he's town, and mafia are sitting quietly and laughing. SDM raised some good points, but I'm not convinced on Sharrant yet. Going to wait for him to post before I comment on that. Also need some others to post! | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
He's in a similar position to debears - bad decisions do not necessarily mean scum. Think about it - what could a mafia hope to gain by this? Getting a lynch is far too ambitious, and a role claim isn't worth getting so much attention to yourself. Mafia wouldn't want to aggressively pursue targets, they want to passively follow the crowd. Sharrant rode hard on debears, and has shown that he's willing to use his vote freely. I think that trying to get a role claim is a bad idea (debears will claim vanilla town no matter what role he is, this tells us nothing) but I don't see what's scummy about that. He's actively scumhunting, and both of his ideas (kush being SK, pressuring on debears) are original. Someone mentioned the possibility of debears+thrawn being masons, which is something I didn't think of. The bromance between the two is pretty apparent since the beginning. Both have said that they believe the other is town, and they've used FOS (against sonic) and vote (against Sharrant) in unison. Thoughts? I don't see a strong case for both debears and Sharrant right now. I'd be more inclined to vote for KillingTime if anything. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 03:23 drazak wrote: As far as looking at Debears goes, I think it's a dead end, I'd definitely like to see his response, but I don't think your reasoning was very good kush, you yourself have show how saying something would look from each perspecting, which is exactly what Debears was doing. IN addition, it's an examination of motives, which is important, everyone has a motive. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
On September 19 2012 15:52 Stutters695 wrote: I'm really not sure about Kush. He's hard to read. He's active however so I'd like to see him contribute more and get a better read on him. One major question for him: Why were you honest about this? Telling everyone you're going to avoid getting night-killed so you can maintain a pointless streak serves no purpose from a town perspective. All it does is provide excuses for you for any potential bad play and if you're town waste time on unnecessary discussion. You also say: He says he isn't sure enough to vote Sharrant over a lurker, but he's willing to vote debears. What makes you think he is a better scum lynch than removing a lurker or lynching Scharrant. This post is very striking. It's your second post, the first one being about the same topic. Kush's early comments have been discussed and are pretty irrelevant now. Your last paragraph asks a question which has been answered already, and doesn't contribute. I'm getting the vibe of someone who's posting only because he feels pressured to post. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
On September 19 2012 23:18 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: The Kush being SK read I've already commented on. His target is not original and I think calling out SK is weird. The Debears read is most certainly not original, since he's adding basically nothing to my case. He also made after he had already gotten accused. Just to clarify, I meant that actively pursuing debears with role claim pressure was original (although bad, as pointed out). He was active in trying to get more information. On September 20 2012 01:48 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: If we're going for a lurker lynch, I wouldn't go for Stutters. Cubu is a fucking mystery and shouldn't be allowed into any more maffia games. I'm also suspicious of Remedy and Ataheitalos. I haven't really looked into a possible lurker lynch yet, so take those opinions with a grain of salt. I'm getting a deja vu from XXVI where we had a Stutters vs Cubu wagon. Both were town and d2 was basically just a restart of d1 with two fewer townies. I'm definitely not set only lynching a lurker aorn. Typo? I'm guessing that means me? I'll be back after class with a post, but right now I'm leaning towards shutters and cubu. I don't see a strong enough case for debears / sharrant. For now, ##VOTE: Shutters695 | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
1) We decide to lynch Sharrant, he then outs the other mason. Pretty bad outcome as the mason will simply die. 2) Sharrant outs a mason, he confirms, and we lynch cubu or killing. At this point it's very unlikely for both Sharrant and his ally to be mafia, and more likely for both to be masons. Relatively strong outcome. 3) We lynch Sharrant without him revealing the mason. If he was bluffing and flips red, this is a huge win, but it's a stretch. If he flips mason, we're in trouble. 4) Sharrant doesn't reveal the mason and we lynch cubu or killing. This seems like rolling the dice, as we wouldn't have any idea if Sharrant is lying or not, and it's very possible for us to lynch a townie on top of that. I'm leaning towards 2) as an option right now unless something changes. From the description it sounds like masons come in pairs, and it'd be extremely unlikely for there to be more than 2 masons in any case. If I'm wrong on any of the game mechanics here please correct me. I feel that both Killing and Stutters are slightly scummy/lurky but cubu sounds like a strong vote as well. I was hoping for him to post by now. ##unvote ##vote cubu | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
On September 20 2012 09:09 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: What is this? You don't post ANYTHINBG productive for 48 hours and then you conveniently drop by 1 minutes after deadline to chime in you think drazak is a mislynch. Is this hunting for cheap townie points before drazak is flipping green? I wasn't around after my last post, and I mixed up the voting deadline by an hour (thought it would be an hour from now, my bad). Your last sentence is a pretty moot point since it'd look equally bad for me if he flipped red. The instant bandwagon against him is pretty interesting, and it's obvious now that the mafia had a strong hand in it. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak. The consensus was "eh, he's kinda scummy, and kinda lurking, and he's kinda the best option, let's kill him and see what happens". The problem with choosing between killer and drazak is that, like I meant earlier, mafia has a lot of power here. If killer turns out to be mafia, his team can go for a drazak vote and the bandwagon easily follows because nobody has strong feelings one way or the other. The time constraint and confusion was really perfect for something like this. So yeah, as a principle I'd support no-lynching (on day one only) versus doing a half-assed lynch on someone else. I'm mostly waiting for Cubu / his replacement to comment about the mason thing, as that's the key factor to Sharrant's innocence. When he made the claim he had no idea whether or not Cubu would end up posting and voting, which makes lying an amazingly ballsy play. Will be around again tomorrow afternoon. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
In response to this: On September 20 2012 12:40 debears wrote: Why would you want a no lynch? Even though the mason claim caused confusion, there were two reasonable candidates in drazak and KillingTime who had been lurking with scummy tells. All a no lynch would have done is keep lurkers around. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
Note that I voted for cubu before he was revealed as a mason, and before I knew about the no-lynch possibility. Cubu is also a different breed than killing+drazak. The latter two made some posts, and I hoped that in days 2 and beyond they would be more active. I looked at cubu's filter and his posts from last game, and he didn't do anything at all. He isn't a lurker, he's a non-player. Meaning that, even if he's lynched and turns out to be town, nothing of value was lost. Whereas if killing+drazak flip blue we lose some contribution. My statement that mafia had a big part in the lynch came off stronger than I intended, but I feel this way mainly because of the power mafia has in such a scenario. More on this below. On September 20 2012 16:02 debears wrote: Where do you get that this was the consensus. There is a reason why they showed up as targets. Although they posted, their posts did not contain much. They voted for other players without stating their own reasons. I understand why they are considered suspicious. My argument is that they aren't suspicious enough for a day 1 lynch. The reasons to vote them up weren't too strong to me. On September 20 2012 16:02 debears wrote: Is that why you wanted a no lynch? I wanted a no lynch because I didn't agree with the panic vote. I just wanted to play it safe on day 1. On September 20 2012 16:02 debears wrote: The problem with this logic is that you could have said the same for drazak if you don't look at the situation with hindsight. Drazak and Killing did similar things. In fact, any lynching can be due to mafia. Who do you feel is the most mafia right now? Also, mafia can essentially bandwagon on a no lynch also. A no lynch makes it alright for everyone to prevent taking sides on arguments "because no one has strong feelings one way or another". The mafia can hide behind it. You're right in the first paragraph, and that's why I think it's so hard for town to have made the correct decision in the situation. Yes, mafia influences every lynch, but that effect is increased when the town is in chaos. A no lynch would have been detrimental to mafia in such a situation because they can grab a free kill. Both killer and drazak were seen as suspicious lurkers by the majority, and their deaths as green wouldn't reflect that poorly on the accusers. (This is the part I meant by see below) One thing I just thought of is that it's possible for both killer and drazak to be town, in which case mafia wouldn't really have to do anything at all as long as town decides to lynch one of the two. It's also possible that mafia was simply not active during the time. This is why I partially take back what I said. The TL;DR of all this is that I just wanted to play it safe, and not lynch someone who had a decent possibility of being town. That's why I advocated a no-lynch. I don't agree with the idea that it "lets mafia hide" as you said. I'm going AFK for several hours now. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
After the post where I voted cubu I went to a school event with the intention of coming back an hour before lynch. I come back to find that lynch time is almost here and start skimming the recent posts. I knew it was too late to do analysis and impact the lynch in any way, and ended up posting that one liner. If I was mafia and lurking the whole time, I would have posted a while earlier (or not at all), and I wouldve at least changed my vote ffs. I guess you could make the argument that I faked being afk to earn some "town cred" but that's a stretch because there's little to gain from that and there were so many easy plays available. Now I see why my 2nd post after lynch was kinda bad mistake. It was hasty and based on the fact that drazak got so many votes so fast. | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
On September 21 2012 13:49 thrawn2112 wrote: Quick question to atreides, nobody else answer please. Do you remember why you mixed up the vote deadline? I'm pretty retarded when it comes to time zones and I mixed up EDT with EST. rethos: his recent posts are a mess but his earlier posts are more townish. On September 19 2012 15:44 rethos wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 14:05 debears wrote: I will be able to post an argument on you and Kush tomorrow, most likely in the morning. In the lurkers, there is one that still has my attention, Rethos. This was his last post. Although he is posting, his posts are not beneficial. Most of the latest ones contain questions. He hasn't directed accusations at anyone. This is just a sample of what he does. Three questions in a row that he did not post an answer for himself. Most of his other posts follow a similar format. He just directs the question at someone. I understand the difference in time zones affecting the amount of posts. However, the quality is poor. He isn't taking a stand on anything. Looks like he is trying to look active without provoking anyone. I actually like that you are attacking me belive it or not. That gives you some town points. But my suspicions on you still stand. I am asking A LOT of questions yes. But i do belive those are all beneficial. Let's go over them on a post by post or even better group by group. First of all i asked questions when SDM and thrawn2112 where the only ones that were getting a discussion going. After all the questioning I posted my opinion on it. The deal has fallen flat since you arrived but I still did not forget it so I asked for a conclusion in my last post because it seems bad to leave loose ends like that. On to the second group of questions. Those are all directed at thrawn2112, your main defender. It's actually in my opinion an interogatory of both you and thrawn2112 and I like first making all things clear before I drop my 2c. Also all these questions are obviously (in my opinion) accusations directed towards you. Every single one can be understood to be "I find [object of said question] suspicious behaviour". The reason they are questions is because I am having a dialoge and not just writing down my thoughts. TL,DR: The reason I pose un-answered questions is because they are all directed questions. Questions that I for one think should be answered by the person I ask. Please keep this discussion going if you are not satisfied with my answer. This one in particular shows that he didn't overreact or panic when put under suspicion. Thrawn believes that rethos left the game because he was outed as mafia...that's a pretty bold and ridiculous claim. rethos' enthusiasm early on has nothing to do with his boredom later on. He was excited to play, but found out that the game wasn't fun for him. Mostly I don't see the mafia motivation for his posts, but I see the boredom motivation for them. Stutters: I had some suspicion on him early on, but dropped it when nobody else felt the same way. What makes me a little more suspicious of him now is how easily he's been able to stay off the radar. In particular, debears and thrawn (two big posters) have not mentioned him at all. His last post: 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). But he's nowhere to be seen. This itself isn't scummy, I know that things happen (even though it's been quite a while since his post...) It does make sense for a mafia member to be called out less then a townie, as his teammates wouldn't say much. His vote on drazak was pretty bandwagonish and his other posts are relatively low-content. Lots of questions and no firm statements. Looking at the previous game he was also slightly lurky there but not as bad as this game. He ended up being a vigilante that game, but I think that the chance of him being blue here is small with jailkeeper / mason in the mix. Remedy: I agree that most of his posts are one-liners and he doesn't explain the reasoning behind his reads enough. I would like to see him make longer and more detailed posts before lynch time today. I don't agree with most of the other arguments against him, I'll get into those soon. (A side note: this game takes waaaaaaaaaay more time and investment then I had originally expected!) | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
I don't think the association argument is very strong, more of an observation that I wanted to point out and observe how it carries forward. I do have some suspicion on debears / thrawn (I believe that one of the two are likely to be mafia) but this is just my feeling atm and I'll try to elaborate on it. Debears simply mentioned stutters in a list of lurkers. Nothing substantial at all. What I meant by mentioning stutters would be something similar to this: On September 22 2012 01:20 KillingTime wrote: Stutters seems scummy to me, I might support a lynch on him. He has not added anything to the game beyond attacks on kush all of day 1 which he knew would prove nothing and not get taken up for the lynch - he then says he is dropping them for now because there are bigger fish to fry. Now he has dropped off the planet and not posted since. This is when he should be frying that big fish. Stutters, do you still think Kush is scum? Will be back in 2-3 hours | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:10 debears wrote: @Atreides + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2012 07:50 Atreides- wrote: @thrawn: It's stutters right now but I'm waiting to see his reply to everything that has been going on. And yeah agree with your above comment, I had that typed up but I take so long to post you beat me to it. I don't think the association argument is very strong, more of an observation that I wanted to point out and observe how it carries forward. I do have some suspicion on debears / thrawn (I believe that one of the two are likely to be mafia) but this is just my feeling atm and I'll try to elaborate on it. Debears simply mentioned stutters in a list of lurkers. Nothing substantial at all. What I meant by mentioning stutters would be something similar to this: Will be back in 2-3 hours It's not that I don't acknowledge that stutters has been lurking. It's just that its useless to spread my focus on you, Remedy, Rethos, KillingTime, and Stutters. I've mainly targeted you and KillingTime lately, and then Rethos when his whole fiasco came up. Right now, after reading over Killing's filter, it seems like he is becoming more active. His posts are a little better. One thing I do want to give Killing credit for + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 16:15 KillingTime wrote: I obviously know that lynching me would have been a mislynch aswell. For me, I left the thread with 2 votes on debears, and several people who had previously felt that he looked scummy... and instead drazak got lynched. Herp derp - before I think too much about the endgame hour though I think we need to sort out this cubu/sharrant mason thing asap given that some are still not convinced. Obviously Cubu is not going to help. Is it allowed to ask Sharrant to post a link to the mason quicktopic to prove his claim? I am asking the mods first because I feel like it might not be, but it wasn't clear in the rules (it says you can post your role pm and the sample role pm makes no mention of not being able to post the quicktopic link to the thread if you choose) His idea about the qt helped back up sharrant's claim big time and potentially saved the most likely mason. He is coming off less scummy than before. Right now though, I'd say my biggest scumread is Rethos and you, Atreides are also up there. You, Atreides have failed to address posts that wanted to here more of your side of your earlier comments after the lynch. + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2012 01:35 debears wrote: @sharrant The evidence backing the mason claim is good, as pointed out by thrawn and sonic, and with sharky's confirm. I stated early in the morning that I would not be there for the lynch due to practice (and I play for a D1 baseball team, I don't really have a choice for scheduling. I also stated that I had classes until 5 (the last one was a physics lab in which I have to be active). I had to do a quick in and out because I was in a rush and there was a lot to read. @Atreides Unfortunately, there were a lot of us absent at the time of the lynch. One person does stand out from the crowd of us absentees, Atreides + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 11:55 Atreides- wrote: In defense of Sharrant - He's in a similar position to debears - bad decisions do not necessarily mean scum. Think about it - what could a mafia hope to gain by this? Getting a lynch is far too ambitious, and a role claim isn't worth getting so much attention to yourself. Mafia wouldn't want to aggressively pursue targets, they want to passively follow the crowd. Sharrant rode hard on debears, and has shown that he's willing to use his vote freely. I think that trying to get a role claim is a bad idea (debears will claim vanilla town no matter what role he is, this tells us nothing) but I don't see what's scummy about that. He's actively scumhunting, and both of his ideas (kush being SK, pressuring on debears) are original. Someone mentioned the possibility of debears+thrawn being masons, which is something I didn't think of. The bromance between the two is pretty apparent since the beginning. Both have said that they believe the other is town, and they've used FOS (against sonic) and vote (against Sharrant) in unison. Thoughts? I don't see a strong case for both debears and Sharrant right now. I'd be more inclined to vote for KillingTime if anything. At that point, there wasn't anything concrete, so your judgement passed. Now, for his next post related to sharrant + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:41 Atreides- wrote: Oh man, what an interesting situation. Some possible outcomes: 1) We decide to lynch Sharrant, he then outs the other mason. Pretty bad outcome as the mason will simply die. 2) Sharrant outs a mason, he confirms, and we lynch cubu or killing. At this point it's very unlikely for both Sharrant and his ally to be mafia, and more likely for both to be masons. Relatively strong outcome. 3) We lynch Sharrant without him revealing the mason. If he was bluffing and flips red, this is a huge win, but it's a stretch. If he flips mason, we're in trouble. 4) Sharrant doesn't reveal the mason and we lynch cubu or killing. This seems like rolling the dice, as we wouldn't have any idea if Sharrant is lying or not, and it's very possible for us to lynch a townie on top of that. I'm leaning towards 2) as an option right now unless something changes. From the description it sounds like masons come in pairs, and it'd be extremely unlikely for there to be more than 2 masons in any case. If I'm wrong on any of the game mechanics here please correct me. I feel that both Killing and Stutters are slightly scummy/lurky but cubu sounds like a strong vote as well. I was hoping for him to post by now. ##unvote ##vote cubu You fail to mention any of the stuff between that and the mason claim. Sharrant had 6 votes, and had said things that didn't make any sense until the claim. Next, you don't post anything until 1 minute after the deadline, citing the preference for a no lynch. + Show Spoiler + Atreides- United States. September 20 2012 09:16. Posts 72 PM Profile Quote # filter On September 20 2012 09:09 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Show nested quote + What is this? You don't post ANYTHINBG productive for 48 hours and then you conveniently drop by 1 minutes after deadline to chime in you think drazak is a mislynch. Is this hunting for cheap townie points before drazak is flipping green? I wasn't around after my last post, and I mixed up the voting deadline by an hour (thought it would be an hour from now, my bad). Your last sentence is a pretty moot point since it'd look equally bad for me if he flipped red. I find it odd that you happen to just "mix up the deadline" and yet check and post at 9:01 about the no lynch even though the thread was "blowing up". That means you must have been looking at the thread. And that means you must have known about the deadline's correct time. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 15:10 Atreides- wrote: I didn't actually know about the no-lynch until the mod posted about it. If I had, I would've suggested it quite a while ago. I'm assuming that voting for a no-lynch works the same way as voting for a lynch, in that we just need a majority of votes (and not every vote like you said). Maybe I'm wrong on this. There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak. The consensus was "eh, he's kinda scummy, and kinda lurking, and he's kinda the best option, let's kill him and see what happens". The problem with choosing between killer and drazak is that, like I meant earlier, mafia has a lot of power here. If killer turns out to be mafia, his team can go for a drazak vote and the bandwagon easily follows because nobody has strong feelings one way or the other. The time constraint and confusion was really perfect for something like this. So yeah, as a principle I'd support no-lynching (on day one only) versus doing a half-assed lynch on someone else. I'm mostly waiting for Cubu / his replacement to comment about the mason thing, as that's the key factor to Sharrant's innocence. When he made the claim he had no idea whether or not Cubu would end up posting and voting, which makes lying an amazingly ballsy play. Will be around again tomorrow afternoon. Yet again, you cite that there weren't any strong cases again. You are indecisive. You were purposely lurking at lynch deadline. Do you really expect every lynch to be easy, with laid out proof and someone screaming out "I'm mafia"?...c'mon man You went awol for quite a while, and now that someone else is under heat you pop up in the thread Your only argument has to do with my post right after the deadline. I addressed that here: On September 21 2012 11:01 Atreides- wrote: I had meant to post this afternoon but internet went out.. posting from my phone for now. After the post where I voted cubu I went to a school event with the intention of coming back an hour before lynch. I come back to find that lynch time is almost here and start skimming the recent posts. I knew it was too late to do analysis and impact the lynch in any way, and ended up posting that one liner. If I was mafia and lurking the whole time, I would have posted a while earlier (or not at all), and I wouldve at least changed my vote ffs. I guess you could make the argument that I faked being afk to earn some "town cred" but that's a stretch because there's little to gain from that and there were so many easy plays available. Now I see why my 2nd post after lynch was kinda bad mistake. It was hasty and based on the fact that drazak got so many votes so fast. Why do you think I made that post? | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
1) Hopping on the bandwagon Early in day 1 he votes Sharrant with this post: On September 19 2012 06:45 thrawn2112 wrote: My own accusations against sharrant, sonic's latest post, and sharrant's confirmation that he wants debears to roleclaim is enough for me to:##Vote Sharrant Which occurs right after Sonic's long post in which he states why Sharrant is very scummy. Note that he doesn't address Sonic's post at all. Previous to the post, thrawn was arguing with Sharrant and suspicious of him but hadn't passed judgement one way or another. After Sonic's post, and once Sharrant became the main topic of discussion, thrawn was very open to lynching him: On September 20 2012 04:51 thrawn2112 wrote: stutters: so your point about cubu is that no matter what he flips he is so anti-town he needs to be lynched? I can see that logic... especially since he hasn't even voted. (same for drazak- no vote yet) However I stand by my lurker policy of lynching the lurker with the largest amount of scummy content which is killing. I still say that sharrant is scummy enough to override lurker policy However I didn't think of anything at the time these posts were happening, because Sharrant was making some strange posts at the time, and more importantly the fact that thrawn was first to call out Sharrant. Next, what I think is a huge slip, his vote on drazak: Initially he believes that both killer and drazak are scummy lurkers and is willing to vote for either: Sharrant votes drazak as a lurker policy lynch. Sonic votes based on the change in his meta and his bandwagon vote on Sharrant. Kush votes and admits to bandwagoning. Thrawn copycats Sonic's reasoning and votes drazak after kush. Drazak's post: On September 20 2012 07:27 drazak wrote: Ok, I'm home now. When I decided to vote sherrant I honestly was just bandwagoning, I couldn't find anyone with a good read other than the lurkers. For the moment, I'd much rather vote cubu, he doesn't have anything to add and if he does flip mason it confirms our other mason. I was on my phone earlier so I had no way to write a longer more descriptive post. I'm going to go through some filters during night and see if I can come up with some suspicions to start D2 with, presuming I make it through the night. Thrawn's post: On September 20 2012 07:30 thrawn2112 wrote: I would go with drazak. Previously my lurker lynch back up was killing but drazak made that retarted vote. I've also had earlier supicions of him maily because of his first post, where he goes out of his way to defend accusations against him that haven't even happend yet. So killing/drazak but I say drazak. vote count? Once the focus is on drazak, thrawn changes his opinion and believes drazak is the stronger vote. Now, what really stands out to me is this: drazak literally admitted to bandwagoning. In thrawn's recent post in the previous page, he says this: + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2012 13:53 thrawn2112 wrote: I've been looking at the final vote count. I think it's very very safe to assume that at least 1 mafia voted for drazak. The people who voted for drazak are: Sharrant, Sonic Death Monkey, kushm4sta, thrawn2112, Stutters695. So then I removed sharrant, sonic, and myself, which leaves kush and stutters. Out of those two I think it's more likely stutters is scum. And when I look at their votes, kush made that retarded "ok looks like drazzak is the bandwagon then" vote. Originally it looked suspicious but consider this... why the fuck would a mafia player bandwagon onto a townie lynch and then use such a terrible phrase? Especially to even include the word bandwagon? That imo, is a colossal error that I don't think anyone would be capable of. (well maybe yourharry would find some way to rationalize it) So, that leaves stutters who already looks suspicious, both for lurking, and because of how he stops lurking to pop in the thread once someone calls him out. So if all the follwoing is true, Stutters has to be scum 1: At least 1 mafia voted for drazak 2: There are no holes we've overlooked in sharrant's mason claim 3: My reasoning about kush's vote is extremely likely to be correct (4: and an additional one for people other than myself would be that thrawn is town) For me of course 4 is 100 true. 2 is so close to 100 percent true it may as well be 100 percent. Then I think 3 is the next most likely and 1 is probably the part of the theory I have the most hesitations about. However I think 1 and 3 are solid enough. So in other words I think stutters is a pretty damn good lynch option. Not only for all the reasons just mentioned but also because he's a huge lurker. So kush isn't suspicious because mafia would never admit to bandwagon posting, but drazak was? This is a very big contradiction. After the lynch sonic and debears called me out on my posts, and I get a FOS from sonic. Thrawn jumps in and mirrors the arguments already made against me. His only original argument against me, and one which he repeated in the last page: + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2012 00:53 thrawn2112 wrote: Add this to the contradictory things atreides has said: In that post he lists a bunch of scenarios and in 2 of them he advises lynching killing or cubu. He says the best option is option 2 which is if sharrant outs a mason and the mason confirms then we lynch cubu or killing. Sharrant ended up outing cubu as a mason so obviously cubu would no longer be his lynch choice which leaves killing as his preferred option. Of course cubu didn't confirm... but it still looks liek a contradiction because of how much he had talked about lynching killing in that post But then he comes into the thread and said he would have preferred a no lynch and that "There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak." His lynch reads before the cubu reveal were killing, stutters, and cubu but then later he says he wants a no-lynch because there weren't any good lynch candidates? On September 22 2012 12:37 thrawn2112 wrote: Atreides the timezone explanation is not the one I was looking for that would set aside my doubts about your coming into the thread right as the deadline happened but it's believable. Also, the fact that marv posted about the no-lynch idea right after you posted your last post before deadline makes me accept that your no-lynch comment probably wasn't some sort of lie that you made up on the spot and had no prior knowledge of. The one thing that I'm stuck on is why you would think a no lynch would be better than lynching killing who you had previously said was an acceptable lynch. But anyways those were the main points of my N1 case against you. Apart from those points you've said some questionable things but quality =/= indication of alignment especially in a newbie game so you're down to a null-read. Wanna see you post more as that improves the quality of the read I can make on you. I don't think atreides should be a lynch candidate. The stuff I just posted is enough for me to not have a scumread on him anymore. He has been lurking but if we have to go for a lurker stutters is a much better choice. It's a very odd argument because I made it clear that the knowledge of no-lynch as an option changed my stance on voting. In the second post within the spoiler, thrawn says that I'm no longer suspicious and yet he still has that same point against me. When the focus shifted away from me, so did thrawn's suspicion. Lastly, on to his posts about stutters, who is now the topic of discussion. I feel that everyone has the same opinion on stutters right now, he's a solid lynch candidate but that's mostly due to lurking. I can't make a read off of thrawn here. 2) Ineffectual posting This is more of a wishy washy argument but I get the feeling that thrawn isn't playing strong at all this game compared to what he's used to. I would expect better from one of the more experienced players here. Two examples would be his case against me, and this post: On September 21 2012 12:53 thrawn2112 wrote: Remedy this post sets off my scum alarms. I son't have any evidence (and neither do you) why mafia would have killed sonic other than that he was really townish and I don't think anyone suspected him. So when you start talking about how they might have killed him because of his reads it just makes me think there's some manipulation going on behind his nightkill and your post. I think that Remedy's post lacked explanation (which is usual for him...) but I don't see what's scummy about it. Your read that Remedy is scummy for providing reasons to sonic's death is opposite. If anything mafia would want to feign ignorance about his death, to make it seem like they had no part in it. Possible reasons for this: a) he's mafia, trying to make accusations and cases against people to seem town b) self-preservation, although him being blue is slightly unlikely c) coincidence? he's just having a bad game? I'm just way off base? | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
2) I'm still not 100% on stutters yet, as I said I'm waiting for him to make a real post before making judgement on him. If he fails to be pretty active before lynch, he puts town in an awkward position. 3) Let me know if my post above is annoying to read due to formatting etc so I won't post that way again. 4) can't believe I'm still here at 4:30 AM | ||
|
Atreides-
United States103 Posts
Stutters is a bad vote, right now I don't feel comfortable lynching him without him posting more. I think that his lurking is him genuinely being busy rather than intentional (due to his lurking last game. he once went 2-3 days without a post). After my last post I would have felt strong about voting thrawn, I think I made a good case against him but it was pretty much swept under the rug. Seems like I'm alone here, and there's no chance of him getting votes. However at the very least I suggest looking into my post and his filter...being active doesn't make you town. Dandel doesn't come off as scummy to me yet, and I posted earlier why I didn't buy the case against rethos. He's open to lynching debears, stutters, remedy, and possibly another lurker. Meaning if he's mafia it's less likely for these others to be mafia as well. Remedy...I think he's a last resort lynch at best. I can't make any reads off him. His activity is in line with what he said his work schedule would be. His posts are too short, he votes without explanation, and his arguments don't make much sense...but I have trouble differentiating this between mafia and confused town. | ||
| ||
I won't be here for the 2 hours up to and for a while after the lynch , unless my coach changes his mind. I will post what I can in the morning and lunch.
