Newbie 280: Longest Newbie finally ends, but who won?

[spectrumvoid]

/confirm.

[spectrumvoid]

Post in replacement queue. People may also respond there.

[spectrumvoid]

random vote: mikanoff

I'm really lucky this game started after I finished my project.

[spectrumvoid]

Huh? Defending yourself isn't wrong. It's when you overly defend yourself against a random vote when you're wrong.

[spectrumvoid]

unvote, vote short4now

Just to make my vote a little less of a random, now it's based on my gut.

[spectrumvoid]

Lol. I keep playing in games which stall, then move towards a rash lynch due to a deadline. Sigh... I really wanted to play in Speed mafia, even though I didn't do too well in 100MPH.

My vote remains for now.

[spectrumvoid]

Which is the reason why I don't normally join a game, I usually replace someone after this random stage. I'm not getting vibes from anyone, except maybe Mikanoff. But I don't think he was being that serious about it.

[spectrumvoid]

I like replacing late day 1 or at most early day 2. I'll only replace near end-game if the mod is desperate. Well, I like seeing how other people (predecessor) would play my role. And it's really interesting trying to find a way out if you're close to lynch.

You all can call me SV if you want, it's shorter than spectrum.

All my games are not moving at the moment.

[spectrumvoid]

unvote, vote pablito

For asking people to wagon Sage.

[spectrumvoid]

Lol. My vote was also an attempt to generate activity, obviously.

[spectrumvoid]

Oh. I didn't know that. I didn't stop conversation... look! You're still talking! I too, would like to hear from s4n.

[spectrumvoid]

Going by gut = I'm guessing = I'm picking up no vibes. Hope that clears things up.

The 'wagon' (okay, not really a wagon, more like a combination of votes and FOSes) on me has built up too quickly. Especially with the newest addition, short4now's vote. Interesting, at least now we'll have something to discuss.

[spectrumvoid]

Sage: That's exactly why my % of surviving to endgame as townie = 0%. And <50% towards surviving D1 when townie. I still have no idea exactly why. I have been accused of lurking/talking too much, posting too long posts (concentrating on 1 person)/not posting long posts. Gah.

BA: I don't get why you mentioned Drunky's vote. I thought it's obvious that he had unvoted me.

Mikanoff: I don't think putting a 2nd vote on someone with reason counts as bandwagoning.

Sage: Yes, s4n might be a newbie, but he might be newbie town, or newbie scum.

[spectrumvoid]

Sigh. I've recently been lynched for being too active in my other games, so I can sympathise with s4n. My usual playstyle as townie is to share everything so that even if I die, the town has more info. My usual playstyle as scum is also to share everything, but lie all the way.

[spectrumvoid]

unvote

I went back to do a read of s4n's posts. While he still might be scum (everyone might still be scum, it's only day 1), I think he made an honest mistake. Also, the moment we pointed it out, he explained what he did, and I think his explanation made sense.

[spectrumvoid]

I find pablito's reaction very interesting.

Why didn't he respond to the points in the PBPA? It wasn't as if the points weren't valid. His excuse was that he wanted Drunky to give him a list. This is just... odd... since I thought it was obvious from the PBPA. However, I don't really think this is a scum-tell, it's just something that is totally weird.

Pablito also seems to be saying we should let the game die down a little. While quick lynching is always bad, discussion is always good. This is interesting because many of the games I'm in now are at deadline due to stagnant activity, and we have to lynch someone with less than optimum info. It's possibly a scum-tell. But I believe pablito reason: to avoid giving an emotional response, for now because getting into a 2 vs 1 shouting match isn't a good thing. However, I still want pablito to respond to the accusatinos made against him.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm here. Will post later due to the 2 long post to go through.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm here. Will post later due to the 2 long post to go through.

[spectrumvoid]

I like pablito's post too. And I take back what I said in my 3rd last post, where I suspected him because he refused to answer Drunky. I think he's answered the accusations directed against him well.

I haven't decided whether I agree with his analysis of other people though.

[spectrumvoid]

Pablito: Are you serious?!

I'm sorry if I keep changing my mind about pablito, but his last post was seriously weird.

BA: I disagree that Drunky was being over-defensive. His posts comes across as a natural defensive reaction. But I know that the definition of being overly defensive varies from person to person, ie, different people have differing standards of 'usual' defensiveness.

[spectrumvoid]

Cool. You sound exactly like chamber.

I looked at post again

I'm going to unvote spectrum,

but I do still have some suspicions

and I'm going to wait until I can provide a good reason to vote for somebody.

Phrase underlined by me. I still don't get where you get the HEY EVERYONE I'M UNVOTING SV bit, but I have something different to add. That sounds to me like: Hey I'm unvoting SV, but HE'S MIGHT BE SCUMMY. So if I get lynched and turn out scum (assuming he's scum), he can say: Hey look everyone, I was attacking SV. Or if I turn out turn, he can say: Hey look everyone, I unvoted. Whoever voted was scummy. Sounds to me like 'scum covering his own ass' tactic.

FOS: s4n

with intent to vote after VC.

[spectrumvoid]

Unofficial VC:

Short4now: 1 ( pablito)
mikanoff: 1 (Sage)
drunky: 1 (BA)

vote: s4n

(For some reason I was thinking he had 3 votes on him or something cos I missed the unvotes.)

[spectrumvoid]

That's 2 votes on s4n by Sage and me.

[spectrumvoid]

wow, it seems every time sage asks me to talk I get a sworm of votes agasin't me >_<

I'll try to participate more, but I can't help to be afraid to contribute if everytime I've said something I get a sworm of votes and suspicions.

I don't like his response. Emotional, and being so defensive. It's a game of mafia, of course there's going to be suspicions and votes flying everywhere, you knew it when you signed up. Sounds like you're just fishing for an excuse to lurk.

The last para where you accused me is just crap. I was just trying to put myself in the shoes of a newbie. There goes my usual policy of cutting newbies some slack early game. *irritated*

I had a totally different reason from Pablito, I wasn't echoing him in anyway. And if you didn't make the post I quoted, I'd have had nothing to say.

[spectrumvoid]

Forgot to add this: I don't blame Pablito for having cold feet. We're only at 7 pages, and that's pretty fast to lynch someone.

[spectrumvoid]

Huh? Nope, I didn't claim liar, because I'm obviously not scum

[spectrumvoid]

/offtopic: Pablito likes to do vaguely scummy things and see who pushes for his lynch. It's an interesting playstyle. Pab: What's your survival %?

[spectrumvoid]

I disagree with most of Drunky's points (obviously except the ones where he defended me mainly because I think he blew things out of proportion. I'll explain exactly why later in detail.

I agree with most of the things BA said, except the part about bandwagoning. Scum could easily lie and say something like that: hey, I bandwagoned/pressured someone to get reactions from everybody, while actually trying to get them lynched. However, with that said, I read this more as a difference in opinion and playstyle as compared to a scum-tell.

Sage: Yup, I'd like you to explain yourself.

Mikanoff: Please do something about your inactivity?

[spectrumvoid]

Comments in chronological order:

Here's the explanation I promised: I think Drunky exaggerated over the BA complimenting Pab. Obviously, we'd expect people to use words like 'us', and to sound like they're town, unless they're really dumb mafia, so I don't see where you get the 'town agrees you're not scummy' part. Also, nowhere does he say Pab isn't scummy. (the 'warm and fuzzies' part.)

The quote about 'people will outright... bandwagons' was also exaggerated. I don't understand D's accusation that BA does this to help scum, mainly because I don't see how what he has done will help scum.

Post about leaving out IC players sounds to me more like a difference in opinion in playstyle, not a scum-tell.

Bolded post quoting 'if the reaction is poor... scummy.' I actually agree with BA here. After all, we may not have a cop this game, and if we don't, judging reactions is the best way to go. Also, even if we have differences in opinion over whether or not something is a poor reaction, that in itself is good information.

I agree with the rest.

pablito's post 175 is just illogical. Why does posting detailed posts = scummy regardless of content?

Mikanoff's post 178. Just because Sage seems scummy to you doesn't automatically mean that the person he is following is scummy. For example, Sage could be purposefully framing Pab. With that said, I've noted down your points, but I'm still undecided about both their alignments, I just wanted to point out the holes in your logic.

Sage:
- It isn't that getting people to talk is bad. It's the timing of your post that is interesting.
- If you didn't want to get him lynched for lurking, why did you add on that vote in the first place?
- Agree with you over the Pab with knowledge point. Also would like to add that it's a possible scum tactic to vote, to show some distance with scum, then see someone else vote and unvoted for fear of lynching his partner.
- Agree with your last point. Also would like to add that this behaviour contradicts mikanoff's accusation that you vote-hop easily.

Mikanoff, like what BA said, not posting + not reading = lurking.

BA + Drunky and whoever else is left: what do you think of the exchange between Sage and mikanoff?

I disagree with Pab's post 184. If you read the post, you'll know what you're saying (about attacking someone else) is wrong. I also don't get what you mean by 'opportunistic'.

Also busy during weekends because of work.

[spectrumvoid]

Thanks pablito. Now I get where you're coming from.

I'm not sure yet whether that's just Drunky's playstyle. Usually, when I get accused, I also tend to concentrate on my accuser (a specific person). But I agree that since Drunky was called out for not being around, he should've commented on the entire game.

[spectrumvoid]

I think my old vote was on s4n... didn't s4n say something? Then I unvoted because he said something, then I voted him again? Now why the heck did I do that?

[spectrumvoid]

I did post prior to the crash where I think I listed what I thought of everyone. Drunky has posted post-crash, but not the other 2. I also said somewhere that I didn't want to hammer before s4n responded... I think he did respond, but I wasn't satisfied with it.

Basically, the top 2 people on my LOS are s4n and sage. Drunky is somewhere in the middle, as is everyone else. I'd like to hear from the prodded people before doing anything.

[spectrumvoid]

I read s4n's post. Now read my sig

[spectrumvoid]

Kinda. Discussion is slow. S4n's latest post has done nothing to alleviate the suspicions on him.

[spectrumvoid]

I like this theory. Pablito seems to think I'm scum in every game I'm in with him.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm finally back after a horribly long absence. I was having some weird problems on MS.net logging in and posting (I was posting from the future), read the 2 threads devoted to my problems in the help forum for details. Thanks to those who have alerted people to my problems. I'll respond to everything tomorrow.

[spectrumvoid]

I have been suffering from another error message from MS.net, which hates me. I've posted about it in the help forums. Basically I had to post >5 times for posts to go through, and some of them got lost. More later.

[spectrumvoid]

A purpose of a PBPA: to do a detailed analysis. In response to the 'I don't where pablito is going with his PBPA post', I don't see why pablito has to concentrate solely on proving why Sage is scummy or not, he has gone into detail both ways.

However, like BA and lowell, I'm also of the opinion that pablito was reaching to find a case. Some of what he said was: I think this is protown, but I can't forget what I said earlier, so this is questionable... which is iffy logic to me.

His 1st two quotes are very weak cases.
I agree with his 3rd quote, however, I disagree on the 4th. Pab's case was Sage was covering his bases. I don't think that's really a scum-tell, it's more like him trying to address all the issues.

Ok with the 5th quote. Pab's analysis of the 6th hinges on pab's unknown alignment.

The 7th quote: I think everyone whether town or scum will defend themselves against accusations, so I see nothing scummy about that.

The 8th quote and 9th quote: Why is referring to past games scummy? Some people do that for meta-gaming (which I generally don't agree with because of inaccuracy), but I don't think it's a scum-tell.

The 10th quote: Here's a flip side, hesitating to vote someone isn't exactly a townie tell. Scum could be 'testing the waters.' I agree with the travelling on Drunky's point.

The 11th quote: Don't really get this. In the 10th quote you say he's scummy for having no original ideas. Next you say he's scummy for having an original idea, ie, pushing you. And how is consistency a scum-tell?

I also don't like the since you insist bit, it sounds like a good excuse to blame someone, and I don't think townies will let themselves be led like that.

Your analysis of the next quote is wrong. Basically, you think he's sincere, but because of the previous gut feeling, it isn't. I think you should just think of this post as sincere and stop there. Then take all the points into account. Or else, you can easily destroy all the town tells by saying: yes, this was town, but...

I also don't like your point about Sage's opportunism. It's reaching a little.

Next 2 quotes have my 100% agreement.

The promises point is just crap. There are manymany reasons why people don't fulfil promises, and not all of them point to him as scum.

Again that point about referring to other games. Again, I say it's an attempt at meta, which I don't think is a scumtell.

[spectrumvoid]

Oh, and I didn't mean to say pablito was reaching because he's scummy or anything, I just wanted to provide an alternative viewpoint, since I now think Sage is less scummy. More about BA tomorrow, since I have to do a whole read.

[spectrumvoid]

vote: Pablito

This is mainly because of his voting record and LOS.

I agree with Patrick here, you have been vote hopping. Voting someone but saying you think someone could move up to #1 if someone convinces you sounds scummy. It could be an attempt to spread suspicion around, and also a tactic to cover you ass if person #2 turns out to be scummy.

[spectrumvoid]

unvote

I was having exams when mafia went down (lucky me). My last day is this Monday, expect content only then.

[spectrumvoid]

Oh, and I'm unvoting because I want time to go through in case I've forgotten anything.

[spectrumvoid]

Back from exams. Got a little too drunk and hungover though.

I'm currently stuck in the position of not finding anyone scummy. I think the 3 hottest people have shown scumtells, but I've gone through the defenses to those and I think they are valid.

[spectrumvoid]

3 hottest people = people have dinged on people's scumdar.

I've reread the whole game, I've looked through all the reasons for who thinks who is scummy, and their responses... nope, this can't be a newbie game, or I wouldn't have to do so much work.

I've decided to do a

vote: sage

I promise that I've really taken a whole look at everything, and I'm voting Sage mainly because I think the responses to the accusations against him have been the weakest as compared to the other's people's responses. I know this is a roundabout way of doing it, but I think all the reason for accusing are pretty valid, so I'm going by the responses.

I was in speed mafia. My first mini.

[spectrumvoid]

Like I said, I basically went back to do a read of
1) Accusations against person X.
2) How person X defended against it.
3) Other people's responses.

And so on and so forth for person Y etc.

The only reason why I'm voting for sage is: I think Drunky/pablito/etc have answered better than he has. Sage's defenses are okay, but the rest are better.

[spectrumvoid]

The only reason why I'm voting for sage is: I think Drunky/pablito/

etc

have answered better than he has.

I'm for it. I think I was also in the longest mini ever...

ETC: BA. Was too lazy to spell BA and I thought it wouldn't be fair considering typed out drunky and pablito.

No specifics. What I did was note down the accusations against everyone first, then isolate the posts by each person. This is a lousy way to vote, but I didn't have anything else.

I definitely do not like BA's current posts. Seems to me like his logic is because I sound townie to him and I'm usually townie, therefore I'm townie... don't get why this makes sense.

[spectrumvoid]

In camp till this Saturday.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm back from camp, we got delayed breaking camp due to rain and floods.

I know my timing seems suspicious, but I honestly did a reread and voted Sage for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

To prove I'm not distancing, here's a

vote: BA

[spectrumvoid]

I've already clarified earlier that I thought Sage was the more scummy, but I did acknowledge that I knew my reasons for voting Sage were weak. And yup, I did know I put him at -1.

[spectrumvoid]

Interesting how you try and predict that spectrum-scum is more careful than this... considering I've been mainly townie in my completed games, I don't see how you can metagame this one.

If SV were scum with BA, it's highly unlikely SV would vote BA, especially putting him at -1. SV would've banged on the cases for the rest instead. WIFOMish logic, yep. SV = town, so SV is doing this to end a very circular day.

[spectrumvoid]

Oh. Forgot about that one. I think it's mostly impossible to metagame me since I'm trying out new ways each game. I've been emotional/detached, detailed/short, lurkish/super active, logical/crazy etc.

Pablito: any reason for the unvote?

[spectrumvoid]

*pokes CTD*

[spectrumvoid]

I'll do it.

unvote

I'm giving CTD 24 hours from this post. I'll revote if he doesn't appear.

[spectrumvoid]

When I was suspecting short4now, we were only at page 7 (or less). I suspected him due mostly to his emotional and defensive playstyle. However, when patrick replaced in, I didn't see anything scummy about patrick. Bearing in mind this is supposed to be a newbie game, and short4now is a newbie, and I've seen many other newbies act the way he did under pressure, I left short4now/patrick out.

I think Sage's post is scummy. Period. However, I think a BA lynch will give us most information tomorrow.

mod: VC please?

[spectrumvoid]

vote: BA

Unofficial vote count (since I just realised the mod said he'd be away but here-ish):
BA: 2 (sage, SV)
SV: 2 (CTD, lowell)
pablito: 1 (BA)

Correct me if I screwed up.

I highly suggest BA claim. If anyone wants me to claim, I'll do so.

[spectrumvoid]

How long is the current record for longest newbie?

Nope. But after you replaced, you didn't have show other scumtells. I thought it wouldn't be fair for me to demand a better response from you over how your predecessor played.

Merry Christmas!

[spectrumvoid]

I'm sick of all this speculation about me. I'll claim. Does anyone object?

[spectrumvoid]

This is the way I see it: Either BA/SV are cop/doc. So the order of claiming matters. Of course, since this is C9, we could also have neither, and both of us could be lying.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm the cop.

CTD: It's because I have defended myself, and that's the only defense I have (the playstyle thing.) I have nothing else to add, and I'd rather we move on from me to someone else.

[spectrumvoid]

Oh, and if you leave me alive, I'll be able to prove myself from the night results. BA has to claim doc. If I die tonight, you'll know he lied. If I don't die, I'll investigate someone, and you can determine if I'm guilty or not from that investigation.

[spectrumvoid]

I was pretty sure BA would claim doc because I knew I was cop. Btw, whoever thought I was totally on s4n was wrong. In post 45, I already said I thought he was less suspicious (just went back to do a read.)

vote: BA

I'm very certain that he's lying, since I know I'm the true cop. If I die today (alignment revealed), I urge the doc (if we have one) not to protect BA.

The main case on me is:
1) Defending BA via the timing of my vote for Sage.
2) The 'distancing' vote on BA.
3) s4n/Patrick.

With the counter-claim from BA, 1) is disproved. And I don't regret putting 2 on now. I've responded to 3).

Here's why I think scum would be more likely to counter-claim:
That way, they'll off a cop (me), get a nightkill tomorrow, even if BA is lynched tomorrow, that's 2 kills down with no cop.

If they don't counter-claim, I'm pretty sure I won't get lynched. That leaves BA/Sage/whoever as the next target. We'll lynch one of them, and it's a 66% chance we'll get scum. And my cop investigation tonight might find the remaining scum.

[spectrumvoid]

Here's why: in one of my newbies, the same thing happened. I stupidly claimed cop too early (I was a newbie), got counter-claimed by scum, and the doc protected the scum 'cop.' So I thought I'd best point it out. This is a newbie after all. Can't remember the game number, but it's one of Mr Flay's mods.

[spectrumvoid]

*SV's ghost flits around the room*

[spectrumvoid]

*SV's ghost waits for a reply*

[spectrumvoid]

I don't really have much to say, other than that I believe that pablito is doc. (Yes, I've read through the posts about the odds on why pablito-scum might want to fake claim doc.) My gut says so. I am against pablito revealing who he'll protect tonight, obviously.

Here's what I propose: I think there's been enough sharing of opinions around here, and we have some good analysis to go through. I propose lynching BA soon. After tonight, we'll have one less candidate to worry about, ie, we have one less person whom we think is scummy. I also think that we've had enough information today to analyse for tomorrow.

Is there anything anyone would want me to comment on?

[spectrumvoid]

Assuming we lose someone tonight, that's one less person to worry about tomorrow. (If he dies, he's alignment will be revealed.)

It's obvious because I believe pablito's doc claim.

[spectrumvoid]

BA

[spectrumvoid]

Aren't you guys lucky I woke up earlier today? *grin*

Pablito who did you protect? (ie did you change)

2 scenarios here:
1) Pablito-doc succeeded.
2) Pablito scum chose not to kill.

4 alive. 3 to lynch.
If there was a kill last night, it'll be 3 alive 2 to lynch.
I need time to think this over.

As a side-note: Oh no! Why am I alive in end-game since I always screw it up?

[spectrumvoid]

I currently need to think over why scum might have chosen not to kill.

If I believe pablito protected patrick, that obviously leaves me with Sage.

out of game note: in all my endgame situations, I've voted wrongly roughly 100% or so.

[spectrumvoid]

Refer: 'And they all lived happily ever after' game on wiki. The 1st ever game on MS where town and scum lived in peace and harmony (ie draw.) Roughly same scenario.

Can I have a quick recap of
a. Why isn't anyone suspecting patrick? (open 8... *shivers*)
b. Or me/CTD?

Just putting down whatever's going through my head:
We have 4 people alive. Assume pablito is scum.
Scum choices for nightkill: either me or sage. (obviously not patrick due to fake doc protect, and pablito-scum.) If scum kills me, they lose a pablito supporter. If scum kills sage, they lose someone to attack the next day, given how sage/pablito are in the hot seat. With this reasoning, I can see a case for scum choosing not to nightkill.

Another thing to note: If we continue the assumption that pablito/sage are scum, that leaves me and patrick as the so-called deciding factor. Meta-gaming myself, I've proven that I generally follow whoever I think is protown. This could be important considering 2 out of 3 people here know me pretty well I think.

[spectrumvoid]

Part of the reason for why I believed pablito's doc claim was because I thought sage was scummy. (I've said this before in my previous incarnation.) By default, pablito-doc leaves sage as scum.) I intentionally left this out yesterday because I wanted to see the result of the night kill.

No, no specific changes. I'm just trying to try to keep my mind open to all possibilities. Emphasis on the word try though. I just realised I completely forgot about my predeccesor CTD, and BA with him.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm extremely sure I did say Sage was scummy. That flip was what led to me being lynched, remember?

Sage: What would you call 'doc behaviour?'

[spectrumvoid]

None as of this moment. I'll go take a look at the SV/BA claiming bit.

[spectrumvoid]

I did see the post I didn't want to do anything at that moment because I was sleepy and I was afraid I'd make the wrong decision.

I've tried really hard this game. I made a table in Word with 2 columns and I've listed down suspicions and responses. And I wrote down my opinion in each row. I made it detailed and everything for easy reference. Then I spent 2 hours reading through the thread to make sure I didn't miss out anything.

vote: Sage

If I lost this, I'll suicide before endgame in all my future games. If patrick is scum, I'm never playing in game with you again.`

[spectrumvoid]

Oh shit... I'll kill myself if pablito is scum. What swung it for me in the end was pablito's behaviour, not sage. It was consistent with his doc claim.

[spectrumvoid]

YYYYEEEESSSS!!! My first ever ever endgame win when I'm pro-town!!!

Pablito your play was wayway too confusing. I've never spent that long going through a player's post in isolation before. Then again, it was ultimately your posts that swung it for me.

I'd say yes, this game was confusing because of the replacements. If CTD had stayed, the outcome might have been different. I can't even articulate what exactly made pablito's claim seem genuine. (It's a combination of factors, but the odds posts made me think so. I'm always against people who use the statistics game here, because they're usually scummy.)

Well played though everyone. Let's nominate this for scummies 07!

[spectrumvoid]

Nope. I made it with really bad grammar and short hand, the way I usually take notes in school. Too lazy to go and edit it. But basically I'd say that it was pablito who won the game, and not Sage who lost it, ie, it wasn't that Sage was scummy, just that I thought pablito was more townie/docie as compared to Sage.

I'll do this in endgames next time and hopefully I'll have the same result.