Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[stands2reason]

Hello everyone. I thought I would get a PM as soon as the game started.

[stands2reason]

On the topic of make vanilla townie "claim", it wasn't really such. Since plain townie is the baseline role -- statistically, even if you don't agree with my storyline/philosophical explanations -- and given how little information we have ONE post into the game, I meant it to be interpreted as a facetious statement along the lines of "I'm innocent and uninteresting", which is what everyone is, IMO, implicitly claiming in the initial portion of a basic game.

I think either AntiSemantic or PorkchopExpress is scum. I'd lean towards PE, I don't like his accusatory tone.

vote: PorkchopExpress

[stands2reason]

alright fine

unvote

[stands2reason]

4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1

I was told that we didn't have enough to go on, that it wasn't a good idea this close to a lynch. You think I should reinstate it?

[stands2reason]

stands, I think you should vote as you want to vote, but you need to realize that your vote can have repercussions. If someone would have hammered Porkchop and he would have turned up to be town then you would have had a hand in that.

However, Spinach already took away that possibility by unvoting putting him back at L-2, so 2 people would have had to vote to lynch him. You unvoting doesn't really matter. You just put him at L-3. So if you DO think that he is scum you should vote for him, but DO NOT put someone at L-1 unless you are SURE of it.

That being said I give Spinach +1 town point for prevention of early hammer.

OK then. I still think he's kinda suspcious, so

vote: PE

[stands2reason]

That whole argument thing going on between AS and PE really stood out to me. It seems likely that at least one of them is scum, but then again I might be reading too much into it.

to the people we haven't heard a lot from: in this game
So

FoS alvarian, and stands2reason

FOS?

[stands2reason]

@Alvarian: Do you think Swimmer is overstating the case on Pierre? Why?
@Stands2Reason: Your thoughts on Pierre?

...

Pierre’s last post could be a very fine example of deflection. Hey, look at this active lurker while I avoid posting.

Actually, I'm starting to get the same feeling. He hasn't really put in anything more substantial, even starting the game with a random vote. And then he tries to start a bandwagon on someone that hasn't been posting much.

and fyi, I haven't been lurking. I post every time I visit the board.

unvote

[stands2reason]

Well, that's right actually. My mistake, though I'm learning everyday.

Anyway, we really can't get anyone really for a scumlynch, seeing as no one has shown any major tells as of yet. I guess I should

Unvote

for stands hasn't had any huge traits. I think we need to hang back until we have someone, but we have to try as much as possible to avoid a mislynch. In the next week, I'm sure someone's gonna crack. But if that's not the case, we need another idea.

Scummy vote for me, followed by an unvote to cover yourself lest you look suspicious. Though that is by no means unique to you.

Nevertheless, failing to explain yourself, and then you turn that unvote into pushing the scum mantra of let's be real careful and make sure not to lynch anyone by accident.

FOS Pierre

[stands2reason]

@S2R: Active lurking is something a little different. Yes, you are posting every time you visit (or at least you’re posting frequently enough to remain active) but your posts are totally uninformative one-liners.

OK, so I haven't been putting enough original thought into the game. I'll try to look back over the thread, including some of the stuff I appeared to have missed, and give some input.

[stands2reason]

OK, now for some original thought. I actually read over the whole thread and took notes.


Let's see all the interesting stuff I've observed:

p7 - myk votes for Pierre. Odd. Not the only random joke vote, but still.

p15 Pierre jumps on AS for joke pseudo-roleclaim. p21, myk does the same.

p47 is gold. Pierre says AS is misleading us, but he doesn't want to start a bandwagon, and then does just that. PE's request of an explanation to pierre's statement leads to Pierre claiming that PE is scum.

p72 - myk votes for Spinach, claims he made a contradiction, but doesn't explain or quote

p81 Pierre calls swimmer scummy for pointing out contradictions and voting pattern

p88 Talk about WTF. This one is worth quoting

Still, nothing smells fishy. So

unvote

for now, a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help. But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits.

OR

We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

No one in particular is suspicious, and I might be a cop or town, so I should be lynched.

p103 myk implies AS might be scum based on the same joke pseudo-romeclaim from the beginning of the game. then he agrees with pierre's p88's epically crappy line of argument, then tries to make it sound like I'm scum pretending to be a cop and failing. Bad rationalization

p104 myk's scumlist includes me (see p88 and p103), PE (see p47), swimmer, who has consistently done a good job deconstructing pierre's bad arguments, and AS.

p110 myk comes in to defend Pierre yet again. Pierre's retaliation vote/scumclaim on PE (see p47) p

roves that he's just paranoid and can't possibly be scum!

p111 myk we want a lynch, period (as I understand it)

p125 - just odd.

OK.

@swimmer: paranoid people don't know what is going on, scum does know. That is the reasoning. So scum would never be paranoid if someone tries to convince them.

AS has a great point pierre. That post doesn't help you a bit, and if you want to win, be it before or after your death, you want to hunt for scum.

p127 pierre unvotes on me after his voting style is called out

p139 myk says I'm obviously scummy...apparently for no particular reason.

[stands2reason]

one thing I want to say before I let others react: I see a lot of notes, and little analysis. Further, he is quite singleminded, going only after Pierre, and me. TBH, I don't see a towny here, more scum who goes after the people that are most in the spotlights. A bit opportunistic.

Looking for tells and stuff is fine, really. Like the contradictions spinach was looking for. But you must question yourself what makes those tells worth looking for: why would scum do them more then town,

what is their motivation?

. If you can find a point, or a behaviour of a player, that clearly shows their motivation isn't to find scum, you might very well have scum in your hands.

to the point of the contradiction spinach found, there were two possibilities. Or it was there accidentaly, and it would be a null-tell, or it was put there on purpose, since there was a scum motivation for doing it. I couldn't find, and spinach didn't give, that this was doing any good for scum. Therefor, the "tell" of a contradiction was worthless there.

Using the same on S2R, I see a player that is going with the flow, that brought little analysis, and when he was asked to do so, concentrated on the two people that were most in the spotlights anyway. Is this a town hunting for scum, or is this scum trying to look town, and waiting for the mislynch?

I am going over S2R's post later, maybe tomorrow, maybe sunday.

Pierre and you (whatever you choose to call yourself) are consistently acting scummy. I have listed many posts showing that you and pierre very suspicious. You can't discount the evidence by rhetorical hand-waving.

[stands2reason]

Now, can we have a S2R lynch please?

Am I missing something? Calling for a lynch on someone that doesn't have any scumtells, yet points them out in you?

also

vote: pierre

[stands2reason]

In defence, can I just say that stands2reason has just been on my case the whole time. It's now less of him actually scum hunting and more of him pointing single people out. I still hold my vote, seeing as that would just be a drastic OMGUS.

Maybe I am being too single-minded, but Pierre seems quite scummy. And Myk's comments are ridiculous in the extreme. And when you look at their behavior, scumminess seems apparent.

[stands2reason]

@S2R: Just saying "Vote for THIS guy!" is not a way to make us not suspect you. You have to first explain why you're not scummy,

Well, I'm not scummy because I'm town, and I'm new to this play style (and somewhat new to Mafia in general). To explain my earlier lack of involvement and active lurking? I simply forgot initially and was busy. I don't really have an excuse for that.

and THEN give us other options. In that order. In that priority. Again, redirecting attention is something we've been going at your pet lynchee, Pierre, for.

Well, sorry. The way it was explained, it was my active lurking that made me most suspicious. I got caught up on the game, and it seems apparent to me that Pierre and Myk are scummy. So I gave my thoughts on that.

[stands2reason]

P15

Pierre dislikes AS's claim.

P21

I explain as IC why not to claim, since AS asked that. S2R tries to show here we act as a team, while this isn't happening. Again, he doesn't say he tries, he just implies I and pierre are working together.

Flatly denying something doesn't constitute a counter argument

P47

Here, S2R claims pierre bandwagons, and accuses PCE of being scum. That is way stronger then pierre put it: no wonder S2R can find a "contradiction"

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

What are you trying to do then, exactly?

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

right now, but hey, this is still just a reply to your post.

There's really nothing to say to that. Pierre show's an inconsistent play style, and flatly denying it doesn't change my observation.

P88

The "I am going through all possibilities post". Pierre is going through all the possibilities that could explain S2R's actions. Pierre votes him for the big chance he sees that S2R is scum (you can disagree on that). But S2R nicely summarizes this as

No one in particular is suspicious, and I might be a cop or town, so I should be lynched.

Leaving out: the chance he is scum, and the fact that Pierre brought his reasons in the same post why he thought that likely:

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

So, some major fabrication going on here.

Now, you are the one engaging in creatively interpreting peoples' posts.
Again:

Still, nothing smells fishy. So

unvote

for now, a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help. But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.

Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits.

OR

We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

Pierre's line of reasoning:

*Still, nothing smells fishy. So unvote for now
* a few good posts by AntiSemantic makes me think he's not so suspicious, but rather willing to help.
* But we DO need to get rid someone for informational purposes.

Vote: stands2reason

OK, so I should be offed for informational purposes.

*Now I think he's just trying to quickly get someone off and that with not posting at all. (a fair enough criticism. I haven't been involved in the game as much as I should have)

* It's either he's really bad scum, trying to quickly get off with a post then hide.Then, we can say he's a cop who has nothing behind a vote and just waits. OR We can say he's just a really bad player, not joining in and participating. So reasons, reasons, reasons, really.

But yeah, he can just be a huge newbie.

He admits that I'm sorta scummy, but I might not be scum. He throws out the accusation and vote. But then throws in the caveat to make it look like he's being even-handed.

P103

I never say anyone is trying to look the cop, like S2R claims I did.

Then pleas explain the correct way to interpret this:

what AS said: please be a little more convinced in your reasoning. Sure, you might think you are completely honest here, but the cop thing is overdoing it. Further, as scum, this would be a way to vote, but have the possibility to unvote again, when you want to. Still, I like how you play. Keep it up.