Newbie 818 (Game Over)

[sraymonds]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

What is the 3rd vote theory?

[MiteyMouse]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

What is the 3rd vote theory?

I will explain, I just want pomagranate to answer first.

[hohum]

Official Vote Count:

Jackinthebox777(2): Pablo Molinero, Pomegranate

sraymonds(2): Exalt, Jackinthebox777
adamrights(2): katy, Deep Blue
Pomegranet(1): sraymonds
Deep Blue(1): adamrights

Not Voting(1): MiteyMouse

[Katy]

- Katy, got something original to say? Do you think that adamrights is scummy or merely misguided in his vote?

As far as I know whatever I've posted has come out of my own brain. And my vote's on Adamrights, so yes, I think he's scummy.

How about you? Do you think he's scummy? Or is it something else?

[Pablo Molinero]

Hrm. I must have said that in the original post that got lost...

but I think both reactions on both sides are pretty genuine, ie, not scummy and it's the bit-players or people not even in the equation that I'm most suspicious of right now.

[Pomegranate]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

[Pomegranate]

- Pomegranate, I'm not a fan of your quick "yeah," style post behind Deep Blue and Katy. Again, does adamrights deserve DB's and/or your vote?

I'm not sure if adamrights deserves my vote, but I don't think so. He's been very defensive, which could be a sign of newbie scum, but I think it's just a sign of plain newbieness. Right now I'm not planning to switch my vote, but I might depending on what adam does in the future.

[hohum]

Youdontknow replaces Jackinthebox777

[Youdontknow]

/confirm as replacement

Reading thread...

[MiteyMouse]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

There is a common theory that the third voter on a bandwagon is Scum. Thoughts?

[Exalt]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

There is a common theory that the third voter on a bandwagon is Scum. Thoughts?

The theory is more like the 3rd and 4th votes are scum, not just the 3rd. The reason for that is that scum neither want to start wagons nor be at the end of them, so they will be in the middle somewhere.

Either way, this theory needs evidence to back it up or its useless. You need a case beside the theory and have the theory just be a side note in the case. Without that you are using null tells as evidence.

[MiteyMouse]

I'm trying to get what he thinks about the idea Exalt. I have not voiced an oponion on it.

[MiteyMouse]

Oops...her oponion. Sorry about that!

[Exalt]

Oh ya btw, I'm done with finals now!!!

So this means I should be lurking a lot less... at least in theory haha. I'll do my best to make this game more active now. Sorry about before, but it couldn't be helped.


also:

@MiteyMouse

: Can I ask why you even brought up that theory? I'd like to point something out here

Official Vote Count:

Jackinthebox777(2): Pablo Molinero, Pomegranate

sraymonds(2): Exalt, Jackinthebox777
adamrights(2): katy, Deep Blue
Pomegranet(1): sraymonds
Deep Blue(1): adamrights

Not Voting(1): MiteyMouse

Notice 3 people have TWO votes, and the rest have one, with you not voting?


Now I ask... why did you mention that theory? Tell me how it applies in this situation at all, and why is pomegranate the one you are directing it towards?

I have my own ideas why you mentioned it, but I want to hear it from you first.

[MiteyMouse]

Oh dear...I thought that PM's name was actually 2 seperate voters...hehehe! Now, I feel incredibly silly!

And thank you BTW for expanding on the theory!

[MiteyMouse]

Nevermind...when I asked that, there were 3 votes on Jack. Pom's was the third.

[Exalt]

I stand corrected. Ignore me. I'll wait for pome's response too then

[Pomegranate]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

There is a common theory that the third voter on a bandwagon is Scum. Thoughts?

The theory is more like the 3rd and 4th votes are scum, not just the 3rd. The reason for that is that scum neither want to start wagons nor be at the end of them, so they will be in the middle somewhere.

Either way, this theory needs evidence to back it up or its useless. You need a case beside the theory and have the theory just be a side note in the case. Without that you are using null tells as evidence.

Actually, MM, when you first asked me if I knew about the theory, adamrights

had

unvoted. But I did give Jack his third vote. The reasons that I voted for Jack were stated in post 98, and I did say that if he answered my questions well then I would remove my vote. My vote was basically there to pressure him a bit; it was there to get answers out of him. But he didn't answer my questions. At this point he can't answer them anyway because he's been replaced. Since they won't be answered now, I'll

Unvote

. But I will keep an eye out for Youdontknow.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to be part of a bandwagon, I was trying to get answers out of Jack.

[Youdontknow]

First things first:

Unvote

I’m inclined to agree with Exalt that the majority of the arguments against other players have been pretty weak. For the record, this is my very first Mafia game but my gut tells me that the defensive behavior in this game, at least to the extent here, is somewhat ‘newbish’. It’s probably my inexperience at work, but at this stage of the game it seems far too risky to be taking things so personally (to the respected players here—feel free to comment on this or correct me if I’m way off base). That being said,

Vote: Pomegranate

Given what I said in the first part of this post, I guess it is a bit ironic that I am voting for the person who said that they would watch me closely. I am not voting for Pomegranate because she said that, though. The main reason I vote for Pomegranate is the way she acted at the start of the game. Pomegranate did not contribute a lot of substance but was quick to jump on the bandwagon of both sraymonds (37) and Jackinthebox (95). Pomegranate gave little explanation for her suspicion of either player, except for a short and confusing remark to Jackinthebox (98). Pomegranate, if you don’t mind, please clarify why you voted for Jackinthebox. In post 98, it is not obvious to me why he deserved your vote. Are you voting for him because he wrote a response to an attack he created? Are you voting for him because he suspected Pablo after Pablo attacked him? Is it a mix of both? To me, the way that you have largely lurked (many of your posts having nothing to do with finding out who is Townie and who is Mafia) and are quick to jump on players that other people suspect make you scummy, and that is why you are getting my vote at this point in time.

adamrights, I would like to know why you asked people to vote for you (112). That seems very suspicious to me. What point were you trying to make with that statement? From my understanding, the point of Mafia Scum is to remain in the game as long as possible. By that logic, risking your stake in the game certainly is not worth finding out where people stand. Am I wrong?

Like Pomegranate, adamrights, I would also like a further explanation to your attack and vote on Deep Blue in post 114. Perhaps you did not know, but Deep Blue was answering a question posed by Pablo in post 96. Your response to Deep Blue seems way over the top to me. From my perspective, Deep Blue was not trying to go for a ‘quick lynch’ or randomly trying to lynch anyone. Did you know Pablo asked Deep Blue that question? Does that change your attitude toward Deep Blue? Do you think Deep Blue was really trying to lynch you on the spot given the other posts he or she has made? If not why vote for Deep Blue?

[Exalt]

@Pablo I didn't want to affect your answer, but I don't think we should lurker-lynch...I doubt scum have been lurking, and this might just be a guess -- but someone getting scum in a newbie game might get overly excited...hence even less likely to lurk; plus, it seems worthwhile to keep discussion going and see what happens in the conversations leading to a lynch.

I disagree with this. I have played quite a few newbie games.... and as far as I've seen, lurkers tend to be mafia. This obviously isn't the "rule" to go by at all times, but it does seem really extreme lurkers are mafia to me. They do not contribute to help scum hunt, they do not slip up because they don't contribute, and they just tend to stay out of the limelight that way.

I don't see anyone lurking really intensely at the moment though. I could be wrong, but I think I was the only lurker so far. I explained my reasoning due to finals though, and I won't be any longer.

I just think we shouldn't rule out lurkers COMPLETELY, because that might be a mistake. So far we have been lucky enough where everyone that was lurking have either been replaced or have stopped lurking entirely.

[Pablo Molinero]

Bleah, two replacements on the same "player". Hullo, Ydk.

Unvote

[Pomegranate]

Vote: Pomegranate

Given what I said in the first part of this post, I guess it is a bit ironic that I am voting for the person who said that they would watch me closely. I am not voting for Pomegranate because she said that, though. The main reason I vote for Pomegranate is the way she acted at the start of the game. Pomegranate did not contribute a lot of substance but was quick to jump on the bandwagon of both sraymonds (37) and Jackinthebox (95). Pomegranate gave little explanation for her suspicion of either player, except for a short and confusing remark to Jackinthebox (98). Pomegranate, if you don’t mind, please clarify why you voted for Jackinthebox. In post 98, it is not obvious to me why he deserved your vote. Are you voting for him because he wrote a response to an attack he created? Are you voting for him because he suspected Pablo after Pablo attacked him? Is it a mix of both? To me, the way that you have largely lurked (many of your posts having nothing to do with finding out who is Townie and who is Mafia) and are quick to jump on players that other people suspect make you scummy, and that is why you are getting my vote at this point in time.

Basically, I asked Jack why he gave a possible defense to sraymonds, whom he thought was scummy, then saying that a defense wouldn't do anything

I'm sorry if you don't think I posted a lot of content yet. I'm still feeling my way around, trying to figure out how I play best. I don't see where I jumped on sraymonds' bandwagon; post 37 was me wondering why sraymonds put DB at L-2, and in post 65 I gave him an FoS, but I never voted for him or joined a bandwagon on him.

In post 98 I posted some questions directed toward Jack. The reason I voted for him was because I wanted to put him under a little pressure to answer them. Once he was replaced and he wouldn't be able to answer my questions, I unvoted because pressuring you to answer for him would be useless.

Jackinthebox, you say you find sraymond to be suspicious, yet you give him a defense in order to avoid suspicion in the future. Why? Pablo asked you why you did this, and you say that the defense won't help him. Then you suspect Pablo for coming to sraymond's aid, and voting for you because you didn't make sense. Is that just OMGUS? If not, why?

Basically, I asked Jack why he gave sraymonds a defense, then said that the defense wouldn't help sraymonds anyway (why wouldn't it?). Also, after Pablo voted for Jack, Jack voted for Pablo. I was wondering if there was a reason for it, or if it was OMGUS.

I understand that your vote is not an OMGUS vote. Thanks for explaining yourself.

[Katy]

Eh, a lurker lynch might be a good deterrent in a game without the prod-replace system, but the game offers plenty of other methods to deal with lurkers beyond lynching them, which is always a risky proposition.

I think scum does tend to lurk, given that the more they talk the more likely they are to slip up, or to give someone a reason to vote for them. But town has the ability to note lurkers and call them out for questioning.

The problem I have with newbie games is that it's reall hard to tell if something's scummy or just "newb" behavior. Some behaviors can be explained both ways and I hate letting people off for that, at least not without making it clear what's wrong with it.

Pablo, why did you unvote from Jackinthebox just because he was replaced? Is there something in YDK's post that made you do so? Or was it ust for the replacement?

[Pomegranate]

Here I go...

-DB, do you think you could post some content? Your only post over four lines long was your defense after adamrights voted for you.

-Exalt, who are you most suspicious of? You don't seem to have professed any suspicions yet.

Eh, a lurker lynch might be a good deterrent in a game without the prod-replace system, but the game offers plenty of other methods to deal with lurkers beyond lynching them, which is always a risky proposition.

-Katy, what other types of methods are you reffering to? What are you talking about as far as "risky propositions", and and what is that reffering to?

-MM, who are you most suspicious of? Also, what do you think of YDK's case against me?

-YDK, I your interrogation of me makes you look townie, but I think it was misdirected. I understand how you came to the conclusion that I lurked, but I think I have contributed as much as say, DB, sraymonds, adamrights, or MM/Kitoari.

[Exalt]

-Exalt, who are you most suspicious of? You don't seem to have professed any suspicions yet.

I'm thinking adamrights is the most suspicious that I've found. He has been slightly lurking lately too since being attacked. There is not a whole hell of a lot of content to work with right now, but so far he is my top suspect.

You are my #2

Pablo is top 3 for me, only because of the differences he is playing in this game compared to the last one I was in with him. He also has defended adamrights which threw me off a bit. He claimed to not see it the same way, but its still there.

I have also been watching katy because something feels off there, but I don't have much to support it beyond a hunch.

Beyond that, I am neutral atm.

that being said:

UNVOTE

VOTE: Adamrights

because I want to hear what he has to say about everything, no time for lurking with a deadline in a week.