Newbie 948: Mod Abandoned

[Thunderclees87]

Another beautiful day in Town Town...

Hello all, this is my second game here at mafia scum (I've played two on another site). My first was newbie 778, a mafia victory unfortunately, as I was town. I feel that I played well, considering I outed the first scum on day two, getting him lynched, and was night killed because of it.

I don't know any of you yet.

I am not opposed to questions.

[Thunderclees87]

Also, I thought i would give some insight as to why I do not believe in RVS.

Some background history into my life as a mafia player.

I began in Epic Mafia, with no experience of playing in real life or forum mafia. (I heard my friends talk about playing it with cards, however I never actually played it). Epicmafia.com was the website (i still frequent it to this day).

Online mafia is very fast paced in comparison to forum, and relies heavily on role claiming and abusing power roles. Because of this, RVS stages generally are not necessary and are generally excluded.

Therefore as I move into the forum mafia world (i heard it's more cozy around here), I've never understood the idea of RVS'ing and how it is generally important except to make fake connections with others (take that comment how you want to).

So I don't do it.

Until I get a complete understanding of it, i probably will continue to not do it.

However that's more story on not RVS'ing, now i will be stalking your posts.

I also am not one for random votes. I believe questions are more effective as a way to generate discussion because there can be more meaning behind them.

[Thunderclees87]

I tend to post a lot

That's good to see. My last game on here was pretty slow, it would be nice to have everyone participating fully.

Taking a leadership role isn't a problem Dr. C, taking a leadership role and leading in the wrong direction is a problem (leading a lynch that ends up being townie or a PR, etc.)

In your experience, do see scum taking leadership roles or trying to blend in more often? I tend to see blending in as a more common style for mafioso, but I know a couple of players on another site who prefer to be very active in controlling/leading the town as scum.

[Thunderclees87]

I just want further clarification, what makes mod killing anti-town? What makes you think that ycz6 is infact, town? (modkilling a mafia would be quite pro-town). I need further clarification on that statement please sir.

The question isn't what makes mod-killing anti-town, but what makes wanting mod-kills anti-town. Mod-kills on town players obviously make scums job easier. So I question why you would ask the mod about mod-kills in the that regard.

Agree.

Simple math tells you that a random player being modkilled day 1 is more likely to turn up town than scum. I certainly wouldn't want to lynch a player at random, and this is no different.[/quote]

[Thunderclees87]

Also please understand my modkill comment wasn't directly exactly at zcv6, it was only directed at modkilling in general, for example when we're halfway through game and have lost a couple of townies to scum, or something to that extent. I wouldn't see a mod-kill this early in the game being pro-town either.

Would you see lynching a completely inactive player as a pro-town move?

[Thunderclees87]

My time zone is GMT - 4 hours.

[Thunderclees87]

Even disregarding Antiximo's odd "juicy information" statement, both Dr. Cyanide and and Anti seem pretty scummy. Dr.C's post #16 is extremely defensive, especially this bit:

I have potential to be great town, and a threat to you if you are scum, therefore you set the standard you wish me to conform to, so you can paint a target on my back. And if I don't conform to your standard, I'm scum anyway. Nice try.

There's certainly something to be said for calling out buddying, which Anti was doing, but Dr.C's response is unusually harsh. It seems like he's trying to set up himself up as counter to Anti

Agree.

Dr.Cyanide is already trying to defend against an attack from Anti which isn't even there. It definitely comes across as overly defensive.

[Thunderclees87]

@Thunderclees87 - Yes, I would consider it anti-town if someone pressured for the mod-kill instead of the replacement.

Ok. The reason I asked was that you had originally asked about modkill vs. lynch, with no mention of replacement. Replacement seems to be the best outcome for the town in this situation so I wondered why you hadn't seemed to consider it, but apparently you have.

[Thunderclees87]

Oh... makes sense.

By everyone I meant "add it to the list?", because in my opinion no one (for now) seems to be more scummy than anyone else and a question like that could help orient our attention to someone who might actually be scum.

Also, does the day end when someone gets 5 votes or sometime after that someone gets the votes.

The day will not end until the lynch scene is posted by the mod. After the required threshold of votes is reached (5 for day1), no other votes or unvotes will count past this time, but the discussion may still take place (including the player who was chosen to be lynched) until the moderator makes his final post for the day.

[Thunderclees87]

Ok, seriously, what compells you be post a reply to EVERY SINGLE POST, anti? Do you have nothing better to do with your RL or something?

This is a terrible post.

First, there is no reason to insult anyone. Second, you are actively encouraging him to post less, which is bad for the town. We need discussion to figure out who the scum are. Antiximo is certainly posting more than anyone else, but it is not to the point where he is crowding the thread or making things difficult to read.

You have come across very scummy by posting this remark.

[Thunderclees87]

Each question is situational, and because of that I want your answer and no one elses (another person giving an answer gives scum an answer to latch onto) l. Me giving an answer to everything only gives scum the potential to weasel out of a sticky situation.

I'm not sure if I understood what you meant, but it sounds like you're saying that you're scum.

Who I think is scum?
Pittbunny. Because of the random vote.

Why is the random vote scummy?

[Thunderclees87]

when you had the opportunity to point out all of these facts much earlier and place your vote on him.

You are correct, I should have done this earlier.

Two questions:

Why should you have voted earlier?

At what specific point should you have voted for him?

[Thunderclees87]

Ok, seriously, what compells you be post a reply to EVERY SINGLE POST, anti? Do you have nothing better to do with your RL or something?

This is a terrible post.

First, there is no reason to insult anyone. Second, you are actively encouraging him to post less, which is bad for the town. We need discussion to figure out who the scum are. Antiximo is certainly posting more than anyone else, but it is not to the point where he is crowding the thread or making things difficult to read.

You have come across very scummy by posting this remark.

Any insult was unintended. And why are you pointing this out? Anti doesn't seem too insulted by this. Second, normally you would be right, but Anti actually is crowding the thread. In a just over four page thread, Anti has made 28 posts. Thats enough for a whole page to himself. How is putting out quarter of the posts in the game that has been going for something like 4 days not crowding the game.

Anti, this wasn't a rhetorical question. Why are you posting so much?

Ok, I will have to be a little more specific.

The quantity of posts is not important, rather it is the effect his posts are having on the game. If his posts were making the thread unbearable to read, such that players were having trouble keeping up or being able to get their posts noticed, then we would have a problem.

Is anyone actually having these problems? Can you really say that the thread is being hurt by his post count? Basically, I am trying to say that circumstances have to be

extreme

before you should encourage a player to post less. It seems like you just wanted to point out a statistic (his post count) to make him look bad, when its really not an issue.

[Thunderclees87]

So here is my list of people I find scummy so far.

Zodiark13

- He seems to be all over Anti for basically no reason. First, his vote is for a weak reason, and second, he actively encouraged Anti to post less which makes no sense. This is the scummiest thing I've seen in this game so far.

Dr. Cyanide

- He did not come off looking good from his early interaction with Anti, especially the way he was so defensive for no reason. The fact that he has disappeared doesn't help matters, but that doesn't make him scum for sure.

Anti

- I have been displeased with several little comments which seem to be attempts at buddying. Also, post #74 does add up in my mind. Brothernature had just voted for Anti because of the length of time he waited to vote Dr. Cyanide. In response Anti first says:

While to you it might seem scummy, I had gotten a hands on conversation amongst every player in this game, and after doing so I allowed Dr. C a time of defense.

This seems reasonable to me. But then later in the same post he says:

You are correct, I should have done this earlier.

@Anti: So which is it? Do you stand by your decision to give him time or not?

[Thunderclees87]

So here is my list of people I find scummy so far.

Zodiark13

- He seems to be all over Anti for basically no reason. First, his vote is for a weak reason, and second, he actively encouraged Anti to post less which makes no sense. This is the scummiest thing I've seen in this game so far.

Dr. Cyanide

- He did not come off looking good from his early interaction with Anti, especially the way he was so defensive for no reason. The fact that he has disappeared doesn't help matters, but that doesn't make him scum for sure.

Anti

- I have been displeased with several little comments which seem to be attempts at buddying. Also, post #74 does add up in my mind. Brothernature had just voted for Anti because of the length of time he waited to vote Dr. Cyanide. In response Anti first says:

While to you it might seem scummy, I had gotten a hands on conversation amongst every player in this game, and after doing so I allowed Dr. C a time of defense.

This seems reasonable to me. But then later in the same post he says:

You are correct, I should have done this earlier.

@Anti: So which is it? Do you stand by your decision to give him time or not?

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodirak's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?
Second, was it scummy for Zodiark to attack him like this?

In my eyes, there has been no problem caused by Anti's post count, but I am used to games with high volume posters. Either way it a subjective matter, so I want to see how others feel about it.

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodiark's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?

Second, was it scummy for Zodiark to attack him like this?

In my eyes, there has been no problem caused by Anti's post count, but I am used to games with high volume posters. Either way it a subjective matter, so I want to see how others feel about it.

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodiark's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?

Second, was it scummy for Zodiark to attack him like this?

In my eyes, there has been no problem caused by Anti's post count, but I am used to games with high volume posters. Either way it a subjective matter, so I want to see how others feel about it.

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodiark's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?

Second, was it scummy for Zodiark to attack him like this?

In my eyes, there has been no problem caused by Anti's post count, but I am used to games with high volume posters. Either way it a subjective matter, so I want to see how others feel about it.

[Thunderclees87]

Wow, sorry for the multiposts.

Mod

, feel free to delete the extras (and this post) if you choose.

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodiark's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?

That entirely depends on if he is scum, in which case I am 50/50 on at the moment. (leaning towards over-eager town)

That doesn't make any sense. I am asking if his volume of posts is large enough to discourage participation of others or make the thread hard to read. In other words is there any reason he should be posting less? Please note that the answer to my question does not depend on whether he is scum.

[Thunderclees87]

I would like everyone's opinion on Zodiark's comment.

First, is Anti actually causing a problem?

That entirely depends on if he is scum, in which case I am 50/50 on at the moment. (leaning towards over-eager town)

That doesn't make any sense. I am asking whether his volume of posts is enough to discourage participation from others or make the thread too difficult to read. In other words, should he be posting less? Please note that the answer to my question does not depend on whether he is scum.

[Thunderclees87]

Ok, so I just got done with my read.

vote pittbunny

The biggest concern I see so far in this game is Ant. The exchange between him and Dr. Cyanide, followed by the buddying strikes me as these two being possible scum buddies. Especially in post 68, where Ant addresses an accusation of him and Dr C being scumbuddies, and he goes on the vote Dr C, it just strikes me as very odd.

As for most of the other players, I'm not getting too big of a read off of anybody, I'm just glad to have replaced in early enough.

I am honestly not familiar with the term buddying. The wiki says it is usually done by mafia to throw suspicion on a townsperson. Why do you think the buddying makes them both scum in this case? Doesn't it imply anti is scum and dr.c is town, or am I missing somehting?

[Thunderclees87]

Or I could not, and just pretend I did.

Wow, what a terrible response.

Please tell me why you would even mention that you think someone is scum if you aren't going to give your reasoning. How does this help the town in any way?!

[Thunderclees87]

Incorrect. If you have information but want to watch to analyze behavior, information control is exactly what you're supposed to do. Laying it all in the open might intimidate your target in to acting in a way where it's harder to grab a read.

But here's the problem...Why say anything at all?!

If he is right about ycz6 being scum, then Dr. C basically said "I'm on to you, but I won't tell you why." Now ycz6 can go back and figure out what tells he was giving in an attempt to hide them in the future. Meanwhile the town has no reason to believe Dr. C, and will most likely be unable to pick up the tell that he found.

In this scenario it is correct either to say

nothing

, or explain

everything

. Don't you see how this gives information to the scum only, but not the town?

[Thunderclees87]

I don't, actually, seeing as I can think of a few examples which don't fit your current model. As an example, Dr. C could be reaction-hunting based on gut.

Then at what point should he reveal this? ycz6 clearly responded already, so if he is reaction hunting he should say whether he found anything suspicious in the response.

Also, hunting for reactions can't be an excuse for summy behavior. I wouldn't want scum getting a free pass by saying "I was only fishing for a reaction," after doing something bad for the town.

[Thunderclees87]

Ok guys...

My deepest apologies, I know it looks really bad on my part, hammering Ant, but it was an honest mistake.

God this looks bad on my part.

As bad as this looks, I am leaning towards believing that this was a mistake. Basically, I think that scum would be way more careful than this.

[Thunderclees87]

V/LA

Just by the way, I can't believe you guys let Anti get lynched. Even though he was a suspect, we would have had more on the players going after him if you didn't let thatguy quickhammer him.

Town is disappoint.

This is so dumb. You haven't posted much, you refused to give information to the town, and now you show up blaming the town for one guy's mistake. How were we supposed to stop him? Why didn't you do anything about it?

[Thunderclees87]

To generate discussion, I think everyone should give their top scum picks.

Mine is:

Dr.Cyanide - He has been the most scummy because of the way he is refusing to share his thoughts. On top of that, he hasn't responded to anything recently so he seems to be avoiding the pressure.

Beyond him I can't say I have a strong read on anyone. I remember being displeased with Zodiark's attack on anti, but I believe that was mostly just a difference of opinion between us.

[Thunderclees87]

Wow, this has gotten REALLY quiet. I know that we're all rushing for final projects and tests but come ooon... it's gotten boring

I certainly agree with your sentiment here, but you should be doing something to pick up the pace rather than complaining. Talking about how slow discussion is without trying to fix it does nothing to help the town.

[Thunderclees87]

Mhm. I'm hoping that people show up to start accusing people. I've got nothing to say that wasn't said above.

You haven't given your opinion of thatguy00 lynching anti. Why not start there?

In fact in addition to listing your top scum picks, everyone should also say whether they believe thatguy00's mistake was honest or not.

[Thunderclees87]

Wow I didn't realize it had been that long. I have been getting ready to go away for the weekend, so I will not return until Monday.

It really bothers me that Dr.Cyanide hasn't shown up in so long. He is the person who I would most like to pressure, but I can't do much without him actually playing.

My first impression of brothernature's long winded explanation of his life was that it is unnecessary. No need to go into detail, no one is saying you shouldn't have a life. All we ask is that you participate in the game you signed up for, and when life gets in the way just say "I've been busy", or something to that effect. That being said, I know that everyone has been lacking in posts so I don't hold this against him.

Hopefully there will be plenty to read when I get back next week.

[Thunderclees87]

I'd like to say that I see no merit in either case against brothernature.

An emotional response like his doesn't really have any place in a game like this. However, I feel it is genuine and therefore does not indicate his alignment in any way. Town and scum can both be upset about being called on low activity.

Zodiark's idea that he should be dead unless one of the SE's is scum is pretty weak. One reason why it is dangerous to believe him is that if he is scum, he could convince us to lynch

both

SE's before finding out his theory is wrong. If these are both mislynches then the game would be over.

The fact that brothernature has had so few posts is the only scummy thing I can see. Unfortuanately, the way this game has been going, he can hardly be called scum just because of that.

[Thunderclees87]

Zodiark's idea that he should be dead unless one of the SE's is scum is pretty weak. One reason why it is dangerous to believe him is that if he is scum, he could convince us to lynch both SE's before finding out his theory is wrong. If these are both mislynches then the game would be over.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I said either one or both of the SE, or myself, are scum. It's also risky because I could be scum leading town to one of my scumbuddies, or just a flat-out wrong townie. I'm kinda not liking this very narrow train of thought, and I'm getting bad vibes from it, so;

FoS: Thunderclees87

Ok, let me go over this again because I don't see what is "wrong, wrong, wrong".

You said the following:

That means one of two things;

1) I am scum, therefore, I can't be NK'ed.
2) One or both of the SEs are scum.

In my post, I was attempting to refute claim number two. I don't think it should automatically implicate on of the SE's just because you are still alive. An all noob scum team could very well have left you alive. Do you really believe that to be false?

[Thunderclees87]

Bunny, the reason why you're voting for me is the emotinal tell thing from brothernature, and thats the only thing, as far as I know. Something like that is small and doesn't point to either scum or town. Its more of a personality thing, and is a null point.

True. Not gonna deny it. It was a somewhat poorly-done bait during a time where activity dropped, so I was more or less willing to throw in anything I could, even if it was poorly thought out. All the moreso, really, because easy failarguments usually make good "Hey, let's post now because this person's being stupid" activity-spurring posts.

unvote

Equinox brings up a good point about the opportunistic voting you have been doing. Now, when pressured about your vote on brothernature, you back off. This raises a red flag in my head because its the exact behavior which allowed me to catch the first scum in my last game here. Basically weak votes which you aren't willing to back up. It gives the illusion of scum hunting while not sticking your neck out too much, because whenever someone challenges your vote you back off.

It is good that you at least admit your vote was poorly placed. I would like to see more conviction behind votes in the future, as I don't believe votes should be used to simply start conversation (outside of the RV stage). I will add that this moves you up to the top spot on my scum list.

[Thunderclees87]

While I was reading through day 1, I honestly thought Thundercleese was scum. He seemed to, like Muthaa, not want to take a real stnce on anything. I also noticed how interested he seems in zodiark, and anything scummy about zodiark. Not sure what it might mean at the moment, but I'm taking note of it.

His more recent posts have been more town-ish, so I'm not going to FoS him or anything, even though he hasn't voted even

once

. Definitely gonna be wary of him though. He doesn't smell right to me.

It's true, I do not vote often. My style of play is to analyze everything I can and vote once I have a solid case that I am confident in. I do not put a vote on someone the first time I see scummy behavior, rather I prefer to point out thier faults and question them about it. This can be evidenced in my past games (one on this site, two on another) if you are interested in a little research. Rest assured I will place my vote when I am convinced I have found the best lynch candidate for the day.

[Thunderclees87]

Newb question: let's say I vote for someone right now, would that vote still count on day 2?

Not that I think you'll answer truthfully, but who were you planning on voting, if anyone?

CoheedCambria + Thatguy = Major Lurking. Plus, the "reckless" hammer vote. Not that I

really

think you're scum, but I'm definitely keeping my eye on you.

Muthaa = Totally staying in the background. Which is something I don't like. Also has only placed one vote for the whole game, and all of his posts are either irrelevant or don't really take much of a stance. And his first vote for the whole game, thatguy, is a pretty easy vote to throw out there.

Vote: Muthaa

Agree.

Muthaa has definitely been in the background. I especially don't like the little "newb questions". I understand its a newbie game, but it seems like he is trying to post content without really helping the town. His behavior reminds me of a player in another game of mine who would show up and post votecounts when the mod wasn't around to be helpful. His posts would make it seem like he was participating, yet they wouldn't pertain to the discussion at hand (like finding the scum).

[Thunderclees87]

But this vote is pure opportunism.

I don't know if this'll change your take on his seemingly opportunistic vote, but in a few posts before his ycz6 just posted this:

Throughout his posts, Pittbunny has seemed somewhat... arrogant? The "piss-poor player" comment in his first post, the intentionally obtuse arguments and lack of transparency, the "hey, this is what you should have done" with Anti... I'm just getting an air of superiority from all this.

Pittbunny, I do think you are town, but it would be much more helpful if you would cooperate with us instead of doing your own thing; for instance,

removing your random vote from brothernature and putting it somewhere more useful.

Just saying, in case you missed it.

Wow. I totally missed this.

I'm not sure why you think it will change her mind, if anything it makes Pittbunny look alot worse. He literally changes his vote right after ycz asks him to. This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.

To elaborate, I believe Pittbunny is just trying to go with the flow. Voting for people that others find scummy, and unvoting when he takes any heat for it. It's like he is putting his vote on anti there just to make ycz happy.

I have seen this behavior from scum before.

vote: Pittbunny

[Thunderclees87]

His behavior reminds me of a player in another game of mine who would show up and post votecounts when the mod wasn't around to be helpful. His posts would make it seem like he was participating, yet they wouldn't pertain to the discussion at hand (like finding the scum).

Was that player scum?

Currently unknown. Most people in that game did feel that the bahavior was scummy since he wasn't really helping move the game forward.

[Thunderclees87]

It is good that you at least admit your vote was poorly placed. I would like to see more conviction behind votes in the future, as I don't believe votes should be used to simply start conversation (outside of the RV stage). I will add that this moves you up to the top spot on my scum list.

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you here. Votes placed poorly, regardless of the period the game is in, create discussion. Plus, scum are less likely to place such poor votes, for fear of getting such suspicion on them selves.

Just to clarify...

Are you advocating that people place votes on those who they don't want to lynch (or for bad reasons on those who they do), just to start conversation?

[Thunderclees87]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11328

This is the link to my first game on mafiascum.

I did not realize we were under such a quick deadline either.

@ Mod:

would you mind listing the deadline at the bottom of each votecount? It would be a helpful reminder.

[Thunderclees87]

Pigs do not make good riding animals, sir.

What does this line mean?

[Thunderclees87]

Pigs do not make good riding animals, sir.

What does this line mean?

thatguy00 rode on the back of your case against Pittbunny; the term I've seen used for that is "piggy back."

So you're calling me a pig?

[Thunderclees87]

With the deadline coming up I'd like people to offer their opinions about a no-lynch. I am a firm believer that the town needs a lynch as the information it provides is vital. I'm sure circumstances exist where no-lynching might be appropriate, is this true? If so I'm pretty sure today is not that case.

It's hard to say whether thatguy00 is scummy or lazy since he hasn't really done anything. I guess the way he wanted to piggyback off of my vote makes me a little uneasy. Could he be scum trying to stir up a wagon?

I'm still happy where my vote is and I would urge others to read over Pittbunny's posts. I'll try to read him once again and offer some more thoughts tomorrow.

[Thunderclees87]

So you're calling me a pig?

No. I was screwing with the phrase "piggy backing." I apologize for causing confusion with my statement.

"Piggy back" refers to riding on something -- like how little kids like to ride on their older siblings or parents. It's not literally riding on a pig. You can read more about the phrase on Wikipedia.

Since we're on the subject of imagery, it would be your case that's the metaphorical "pig" -- no implications meant there; it just so happened that the phrase was "

piggy

backing" -- and not the person who presented the case (you).

That statement was directed at thatguy00, and not you. I have no problems with your case, since you made it and put it forward yourself. thatguy00 did not introduce anything new to your case; he simply said he agreed with it and expressed an intention to vote Pittbunny if it wouldn't hammer him.

I'd been using the term "piggy backing" for most of the day when I made that post, so I was hoping I could make this instance a little bit different and be funny. It seems I've failed on both counts. Sorry about that.

Hey, no worries. I know what you mean, I was just kidding.

V/LA:

I will be away from later this afternoon until sometime on Monday. I'll do my best to check in if I can, but I can't guarantee that will be possible.

Unfortunately, we still haven't heard from thatguy or Zodiark, so basically nothing has changed all week. Pittbunny remains my number one suspect. The case against thatguy00 is getting more convincing, and I would even consider switching my vote to avoid a mislynch, but I wouldn't do that until the last minute (I probably won't be around for this).

For now I'll leave things as is.

@Zodiark: When you return, please answer my question about votes I asked a while back.

@Pittbunny: You haven't responded to my vote on you whatsoever. Can you offer anything that might change my mind?

[Thunderclees87]

EBWOP:

and I would even consider switching my vote to avoid a mislynch

This should read: "to avoid a no-lynch".