Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[iamausername]

-=Vote Count #3=-

PorkchopExpress (2) - AntiSemantic, stands2reason
AntiSemantic (2) - Pierre Sickle, PorkchopExpress
Pierre Sickle (1) - swimmer4lyfe
Spinach (1) - mykonian

Not Voting (3) - Alviaran, Einlanzers, Spinach

5 to lynch.

[swimmer4lyfe]

you guys need to comment on Pierre more. So far people have just been "nice case! But I don't agree fully, but I'm not going to explain and ignore you" or have been "welcome to the game! Nice post! Now I'm going to ignore you"

More Pierre discussion please

[Alviaran]

you guys need to comment on Pierre more. So far people have just been "nice case! But I don't agree fully, but I'm not going to explain and ignore you" or have been "welcome to the game! Nice post! Now I'm going to ignore you"

More Pierre discussion please

Why are you so apt to go after him? I haven't seen much that has screamed "scum!" to me, so what makes you think he is?

[swimmer4lyfe]

you guys need to comment on Pierre more. So far people have just been "nice case! But I don't agree fully, but I'm not going to explain and ignore you" or have been "welcome to the game! Nice post! Now I'm going to ignore you"

More Pierre discussion please

Why are you so apt to go after him? I haven't seen much that has screamed "scum!" to me, so what makes you think he is?[/quote

I have a really long post about why I think he's scum. You should probably read it

[Alviaran]

While I thank you for defending me, I don't see him as particularly scummy beyond his poking me. I didn't even bother with an OMGUS vote on him. Like I said, I'm seeing anything...yet.

[swimmer4lyfe]

While I thank you for defending me, I don't see him as particularly scummy beyond his poking me. I didn't even bother with an OMGUS vote on him. Like I said, I'm seeing anything...yet.

I can recap it for you:

-Contradictions in his thinking patterns (serious votes and jokevote stage)
-trying to get someone lynched without looking "bad" if they flip townie
-when called on his faulty logic, tells him that his post is awkward, and since someone read it as awkward, finds that person scummy and FOS' him (this isn't a joke, read his posts)

[Pierre Sickle]

you guys need to comment on Pierre more. So far people have just been "nice case! But I don't agree fully, but I'm not going to explain and ignore you" or have been "welcome to the game! Nice post! Now I'm going to ignore you"

More Pierre discussion please

Sorry all, stupid time zones and what not. First of all, swimmer, this is quite much for your first game. But, right now, I'm actually suspecting you, not just because of you thinking I'm scum. That of course would be indecent .

To clear this up, it's my first game too, and I thought RVS was for the whole first day.

Next, you just want to get out of me so much? Two posts aren't needed IMO, someone did agree with you.

Just jump in, start making some accusations? To make it worse, you try to MAKE SURE that people know all my faults? Seems scummy to me... I think Alviaran also pointed this out.

Right now, attitude is over the whole nothing big yet.

Or it could be pissing you off that you made some incredible observation on me, although I'm not scum anyone those were some fine, fine points.

[Einlanzers]

swimmer4lyfe, just because I think you raise some points doesn't mean I agree with how scummy they are. Most of that stuff can be put off as newb-town/misunderstandings. What I think you REALLY should be doing (or anyone for that matter) is asking direct questions to the person you suspect most. It could be about why they performed an action the way they did or about anything really. The point is to put a vote on for pressure then a question to force them out of hiding. The good thing is that they have to at least someway answer otherwise they look like they're avoiding the question.

Just a note for people new to scumhunting

[Alviaran]

Yeah, swimmer, I read the post where you laid it out on him. But I still don't see scum...I see total newb. Yeah, I'm new to the game too, but he is either really bad scum outing himself through a bunch of scum tells or is making some newbish mistakes. That's my read at least and I'm leaning towards the latter. Not letting him off the hook, I can't trust any of you for obvious reasons (and not really getting a town read on anyone either).

Pierre, the random voting stage doesn't last the first day. It lasts until people start to get serious, which from the games I've read can vary based on the group and what people say during the RVS that starts to tip their hands, or at least until people start noticing something. If the RVS lasted the entire first day, we'd probably end up with a mislynch in there somewhere (longer it goes on with all the crazy random voting, the more likely someone is to sink someone to L-1 or hammer them without someone noticing how close they really are) or we don't lynch at all day 1 and then the scum get a kill on us in the night without us really having learned anything (yes, I'm of the opinion we need to avoid a mislynch as much as possible, but I do think a mislynch rather than a nolynch helps us more on day 1 since we still get information out of it based on voting patterns and the alignment of the lynched person).

tl;dr
Pierre, get serious. At least one person is already gunning for you as scum and he will be doing his best to convince the rest of us you are scum. Maybe you are too and you're playing up the newb card. Who knows? (well, I suppose the scum know. We should ask them about that...)

(Yes, I'm a newb myself but I like to consider myself a quick study. And I'm involved in a pretty quick moving game elsewhere that is forcing me to learn fast or die)

[swimmer4lyfe]

to me, total newb would be someone like stands2reason...where he's not posting any thoughts at all, and is voting someone based on their attitude.

Remember, a scum is doing their best to stay out of limelight and not attract attention. I see the whole AS vs PE argument as a distraction to the town where the scum are trying to get the town to lynch either of them.

That's exactly what I see in Pierre. Attempting to get AS lynched while not looking responsible for it. He has said in his post that he's not trying to start a bandwagon, but he wants that person lynched...that's a contradiction.

And yes, I'm attempting to get a bandwagon on Pierre to lynch him.

you guys need to comment on Pierre more. So far people have just been "nice case! But I don't agree fully, but I'm not going to explain and ignore you" or have been "welcome to the game! Nice post! Now I'm going to ignore you"

More Pierre discussion please

Sorry all, stupid time zones and what not. First of all, swimmer, this is quite much for your first game. But, right now, I'm actually suspecting you, not just because of you thinking I'm scum. That of course would be indecent .

To clear this up, it's my first game too, and I thought RVS was for the whole first day.

Next, you just want to get out of me so much? Two posts aren't needed IMO, someone did agree with you.

Just jump in, start making some accusations? To make it worse, you try to MAKE SURE that people know all my faults? Seems scummy to me... I think Alviaran also pointed this out.

Right now, attitude is over the whole nothing big yet.

Or it could be pissing you off that you made some incredible observation on me, although I'm not scum anyone those were some fine, fine points.

this is not "quite much" for a mafia game. You have to be completely transparent with your opinions and thoughts when playing in order to show the town who ISNT doing that...scum are the only ones trying to hide their true thoughts. There is no quota for how much to post.

Also hilarious that once again someone calls you out, you suspect them as scum. You should read up on something called "OMGUS".

And yes I'm going to list every single fault you do in the entire game. That is not scummy. It's called scum hunting.

Also to Ein, Pierre can simply defend himself on my points and explain his posts. He has not chosen to do so. I don't think I need to ask someone to clarify their posts, I just find the scumminess and then they attempt to explain it.

[Einlanzers]

...or we don't lynch at all day 1 and then the scum get a kill on us in the night without us really having learned anything (yes, I'm of the opinion we need to avoid a mislynch as much as possible, but I do think a mislynch rather than a nolynch helps us more on day 1 since we still get information out of it based on voting patterns and the alignment of the lynched person).

Very good point. This is the VERY first mistake I made when playing mafia. I assumed that a No Lynch is good for the town in that it saves us from a mislynch...but the opposite is true. It leaves the town with no information and thins the towns rank down by 1. Long story short I ended up getting lynched on Day 3 (I think it was) because of my No Lynch vote in RvS.

[SemanticError]

@swimmer: I've been looking over Pierre's posts prior to directly responding to your suggestion, and I'm getting more of an aggressive, very inexperienced vibe from him, rather than scummy. I'm not saying he's un-scummy; I really can't come to a conclusion either way on that one. What he is doing is kicking up dust and muddying the waters. His style draws a lot of attention, and can often be a good cover for scum. However, if not better prospects come up, I'm generally prone to lynching his type, if only to make things easier to sort through.

That being said, I've never run across someone with those same sentiments. Is there something tangibly wrong with that mindset that I'm missing?

@Einlanzers: /agree on the day one lynch. We've gotta have an information-less lynch at some point, might as well get it out of the way ASAP.

@Porkchop: Still waiting on that in-depth post.

[Spinach]

Mod: V/LA until Monday

Sorry for the unexpected thing, but the internet at my house went and and you don't need to hear all the technical stuff, but long story short the internet won't be back up until Monday. I should have a

wall

post up sometime after then. :)

(I even went all the way into town to catch the free wireless internet just for you guys. :P)

[Pierre Sickle]

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.

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

[SemanticError]

@Pierre: You vote for him, call him scummy, then list a whole bunch of reasons why he might not be? Kinda suspicious in that you could be covering yourself for when/if he turns up town, and not very convincing argumentation.

[PorkchopExpress]

Catching up now. Here are two outstanding* responses while you wait.

RE: AntiSemantic

1) The Alleged Context Stripping
If that’s what you were doing, you failed to make it clear. The post from Pierre that you were responding to was not about your actions in this game, it seemed logical that you would responding to that more directly. Judging by how other players were with my thinking, and oblivious to any misrepresentations, I’d say I’m not alone in finding that unclear. As a sidenote, I wouldn’t introduce ‘roleplay’ to Mafia unless it’s an expected part of the rules. It can trip you up since Mafia is essentially a metagame. For instance, decrying the death of a pro-town power role might seem in character, however it’ll just seem scummy to others.

2) Bandwaggoning
Actually I failed at nothing. I provided my reasons in due time. You, however, simply piggybacked other player’s votes and then tried to shield yourself with preemptive defences.

3) Preemptive Defending
Just because it’s the way you play doesn’t change the fact that it’s scummy. This sort of play does two things: firstly, it stifles conversation by limiting other player’s interaction with your posts. Secondly, it’s a cheap way to try and score townie points (from the logic that you’re so pro-town you’d give everyone full disclosure on how flawed your points are) when all you are really doing is undercutting your own scum-hunting. Transparency can be very helpful to the town, but there are better ways to do it.

RE: Pierre
That was an intriguing reaction to a question, Pierre. Let me break the scumminess down for you:

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.

The key parts of the sentence have been highlighted.
1)

Here you find AS scummy enough to warrant voting.

2)

You’re presenting a case that AS is behaving scummily.

3)

But you’re not trying to bandwagon your suspect.

If you can’t see that disconnect then I can’t help you, Pierre. Scum often play like this to help implicate a Townie but try and distance themselves from the outcome. The awkward overreaction to the question earns you some scum points too, pal. We’re more than allowed to ask questions of our fellow players, doing so isn’t scummy.
*Not necessarily in the way you’re thinking

[swimmer4lyfe]

I would attack Pierre's latest post, but AS did an awesome job already.

Pierre has continued to try and go after people but tries to downplay his vote so he does not attract attention if/when that person flips town.

He has also not responded to any of my accusations from page 3.

[PorkchopExpress]

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

@AntiSemantic: What’s your read of Stands2Reason? Also, do you not think that Pierre was just being transparent with his argument? Why?

@Einlazers: Who do you think is most likely to be scum, at the moment? So far you haven’t questioned, accused or otherwise scumhunted. All you’ve done is reason that things are null-tell thus far. What do you make of AS’ preemptive defence? Stands2Reason? I disagree with some of your hyperbole early on (I don’t think AS and I were in danger of flaming/derailing the thread) but that’s really neither here nor there.

@Stands2Reason: Your thoughts on Pierre?

@Swimmer: I’m getting some warm fuzzies from this direction, since he saw what I saw (more or less). I’ll also note that so far Pierre has been suspicious of pretty much everyone who has looked his way. Good posting.

Unvote. Vote: Pierre Sickle

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

[mykonian]

sorry guys, have some trouble to get into the game. Saturday´s are always a mess for me, but tomorrow I am going to try

On this moment, I have trouble to see who is accusing who of what, that will be better tomorrow.

[SemanticError]

@PorkchopExpress: Rebuttals ahead!

1) The Alleged Context Stripping

I looked back, and actually haven't been able to find anyone else who has stated that they took the misrepresented statement in the wrong way in context. The only responses it got as an ideological statement were in response to your presentation of it. Could I have been more clear? Probably. Has anyone else complained about it? No, so don't claim to be speaking for a crowd.

Also, roleplay in the context of RVS joking is, IMO, entirely appropriate.

2) Bandwaggoning

If by in due time you mean after you were prodded to by multiple people, yes.

3) Preemptive Defending

In the context of the instance you took offense to, it was to differentiate between an OMGUS move and a response to a legitimately scummy post. Maybe if I presented it a bit differently --more explicitly, perhaps -- you wouldn't have been so attracted to it.

Overal

l: Maybe I just needed to be more clear for the entirety of early D1?

And RE: Pierre, he was being transparent. Transparently irrational.

@Everyone: Holding off until we get a little more of a response from him, but I'm starting to feel the Pierre needs to go vibe more and more. His posts haven't been helpful... he's been all over the map. Scum or just inconsistent? Can't tell.

[SemanticError]

Also,

Unvote

, because it's seeming more and more like Porkchop vs. me is primarily miscommunication and some minor disagreements.

For now...

[Einlanzers]

PCE, I don't have any overly scum reads as-of-yet. Just a lot of people doing minorly scummy things. I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you are talking about "AS's preemptive defense" could you post a quote about this? As for stands2reason, I don't like that he isn't posting a whole lot nor is he posting frequently.

My last thought on the matter is that I don't much care for your bandwagon hopping. And I'm confused on why you put a lot of attention on AS then vote for Pierre...

[SemanticError]

Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise.

Nope.

Unvote. Vote: AntiSemantic

Seriously, taking a quote out of context and semi-bandwagoning with a single word? I hate making retaliation votes, but this kinda calls for it.

Unvote
Vote:PorkchopExpress

I think this is the post he's referring to.

If not, I'm going to have to review my statements. >.>

[Alviaran]

Well, Porkchop, I may have seen the case on Pierre being too much before, but after this post of Pierre's, I don't think the case is overstated:

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.

This is incredibly scummy to me. Starts off with nothing smells fishy, then decides we need to off SOMEONE so he just votes for someone else. To me, this is saying, "Well, they recognize that they will almost assuredly mislynch Day 1 for info, so getting a wagon should be easy!"

Grats, Pierre. No one had to convince me to do this. You did it yourself.

Vote: Pierre Sickle

[Pierre Sickle]

Well I needed time posting that : )

Just a bad post. I also give reasons as to why he may not be scum to add information. Sometimes, you have to look at the picture two ways.