Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[PorkchopExpress]

@AS:
Re: Context.

I took a quick look back and the only person I can find worried about the OOC issue is you. So, what’s your point? The run of play actually supports what I’m saying, since when I took your statement as a comment about the game others were happy to respond to it as that. It’s pretty easy to infer that you were the only person who really understood its significance. Easy to do since Pierre’s question didn’t relate to the plot element of Mafia at all. So, yes, you could have been clearer. If the other players feel I’m painting them with a broad brush then they’re welcome to say so. YMMV re: roleplaying but my advice is: Be prepared to get grilled for it in your average game of mafia.

Re: Bandwaggoning

You’re overreaching again. You came in so worried about the context of your post that you ignored the context of the discussion. My position was clear if you stop looking at it from your palatial estate on Misrepresentation Mountain™. Spinach was the only person who questioned it, but he understood what I was on about but just wanted me to clarify why I’d think it was scummy. Myk understood what I was saying, but disagreed with it. Then he voted me for that giving me a taste of my own medicine. So, my reasoning was there from the get go and was willingly spelled out when that proved necessary. You’ve failed to demonstrate this as scummy.

RE: Predefense

I understand that you were taking pains to prevent anyone seeing a contradiction in your behaviour, and that concern about outside scrutiny is scummy. More often than not, the best way to handle anything in Mafia is to answer questions as/if they come. If your reasoning is truly sound then you won’t have to worry about looking like you’re casting an OMGUS vote (or whatever).

Overall: Yes, more clarity regarding the game/non-game nature of posts would be appreciated and will save my hands from RSI or whatever people who type a lot get.

@Einlazers: Because I’m scumhunting, so my opinions will shift and I only have one vote for eight other players. I’m not sure there’s a lot of value in sitting around waiting for the scum to fire up their neon ‘Dead Giveaway’ sign, so I’ll apply pressure where I think it’s needed. In light of the misunderstanding, the scummiest thing against AS is trying to head off OMGUS claims before they were an issue. Pierre, however, has exhibited some seriously wishy-washy behaviour and it looks like he’s repeatedly distanced himself from his own opinions on a few occasions. I seem to recall mentioning something about this in this post. Maybe you missed it?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Einlazers: Do you think a more mobile voter is more likely to be scum?

[PorkchopExpress]

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.

I'm not sure I understand. What are you trying to gain by deconstructing your own argument?

[mykonian]

o, yes, before I forget: it would be appreciated if you didn't claim too early, unless you are mafia Townie claims are usually not helping the town, but are helping the mafia.

I guess I should hold off on the vanilla townie claim then, eh?

Unvote: Alviaran, Vote: AntiSemantic

Misleading role claim? Then again, if someone will jump a bandwagon suddenly, this much into the game; I'll put on my FoS. It could be activity limits, but then it's still RvS.

I like this post very much, and am a bit worried about AS: the implied claim does nothing then to show he is town: townies don't want to look town, they want to find scum. Scum tries to look town. Conclusion: a scummy move from AS


The vote from PE, for AS´s view on the game (everybody is town till proven otherwise), is weird. Don't really know what to think of it.

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.

You can interpret and over-analyze it as you will. I can't stop you, that's what mafia is about. But I did not intend it as a formal claim, and it shouldn't be taken as such.

this is as close as it gets to a scumclaim. Again, townies usually don't care about being innocent or uninteresting. They want to find scum, which doesn't seem AS's primary focus.

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.

In AS' response we have:

1) Misrepresentation. How exactly did I take you out of context? How is the rest of the post even relevant to what is being discussed?

Here's the extended quote:

@Pierre: Vanilla townie is not really a role claim. These games start with a bunch of townies living their lives, until people start dying. Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise. Circles I'm used to, that's the base assumption. I meant it sarcastically, but to be clearer I'll use more smilies next time.

Here's the whole post.Nothing has been taken out of context, you've made a seemingly standalone statement (sibilance!) about Mafia, that I do not agree with and piqued my curiosity. You've tried (poorly) to make that seem scummy.

2) Being against "Semi-bandwagoning" while "Semi-bandwagoning" himself.

3) The preemptive defence against an OMGUS claim.

I'm getting some mild sensations in my scumdar here, AS hasn't responded well to pressure.

point 1, PE is completely right. Seems like a very weak defence, to make it able to hop on the wagon, where point 3 comes in. The "I hate to make retalliation votes". Again, townies don't care. If the other is scum, and you can make that likely for the rest, you vote him.

Alviarians tribute to the game, in his first 2 posts, are ehh, weak.

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

IGMEOY (I got my eye on you) This is scummy reasoning, getting on the bandwagon, and you could easily be AS's scumbuddy. The I'd lean to... stuff should be argued. Why do you think so, etc.

Hey guys I'm your other Semi-Experienced player replacing in for david-villa-7.

After a read of the game to this point I see a LOT of pointless arguing over semantics and a lot of swayed voting based off of one persons comment..which is normal in a game with new players, but just a word of caution: Do not do this later in the game. It makes you look very scummy, and distracts from the real scum (unless, of course, you are scum).

I'm not getting a town or a scum read from anyone so far. Everyone is neutral-ish as-of-now.

Things I don't like (AKA find scummy):
1) AntiSemantic's "vanilla town claim" joke in p14.
2) PorkchopExpress's vote without reason (even a joking one) in p22
3) Silly arguing between PCE and AS all over the place.
4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1 and an unvote from Spinach in p38

This is coming into the game! good post.

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?

and someone cares a little more about pleasing the other players then finding scum... Scummy.

So to sum it up...I wasn't saying they were scummy...just that it is something I dislike.

Things I don't like (AKA find scummy):

1) AntiSemantic's "vanilla town claim" joke in p14.
2) PorkchopExpress's vote without reason (even a joking one) in p22

3) Silly arguing between PCE and AS all over the place.

4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1 and an unvote from Spinach in p38

Things I do like:

How silly you all are arguing over food tastes.

So let me get this straight:
You say that the PCE/AS 'silly' arguing it's not scummy, just something you dislike, but you've clearly stated that you found it scummy.
You find 'silly' arguing between PCE and AS bad, yet you say silly arguing over foods isn't.

FoS: Einlanzers

I think I spot a contradiction.

I think you shouldn't be trying to spot this, since there is no scum motive to make this contradiction, so it is probably just a miscommunication because of his bad wording or your bad reading. I would try to avoid it.

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

sorry, but you have done little but voting and unvoting, and again, this vote is not good.

unvote vote stands2reason

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?

that is how we want to see it Alviaran! This is a good way to start. Only comment on more posts, and show your opinions better and you'll be fine.

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

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.


I think swimmers one dimensial play is not the way for a towny to play. Tunneling on one person, generally makes you miss all the others. Further, it is not weird for newbies not knowing how to defend properly, and in general, it is almost impossible to defend if someone runnels on you. It gives more mislynches then necesary. From my point of view, Pierre has shown the intention, right from the start of the game with AS, to find scum, and give arguments, I think he was the first to do so, and he did it in the right way. IMO, one of the towniest guy's we have. I disagree with a Pierre lynch.

[mykonian]

scumlist:

S2R
AS
Swimmer
PE

[iamausername]

-=Vote Count #4=-

Pierre Sickle (3) - swimmer4lyfe, PorkchopExpress, Alviaran
stands2reason (2) - Pierre Sickle, mykonian
PorkchopExpress (1) - stands2reason

Not Voting (3) - Einlanzers, Spinach, AntiSemantic

5 to lynch.

[mykonian]

I think you missed AS, as you have only 8 players

[swimmer4lyfe]

mykonian what is your opinion of this post by Pierre:

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?

Noticed this now, what I am trying to do is give a point. Something simply to consider and take in mind for later, if it does result in a case where AS needs some sort of proof.

But now, your turning me the other way right now. That post in itself sounded awkward. You've just tried to buckle someone trying to help under pressure, though you were initially arguing with AntiSemantic in the first place.

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

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

[Alviaran]

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.

Yes, but you do not decide to lynch someone JUST to get information. We want to AVOID a mislynch if possible. We just have to come to terms that we are likely to mislynch and to realize that a mislynch is still better for us than a no lynch.

You're quickness to lynch someone for information tells me you are scummy and are trying to get us to lynch one of our own.

[Pierre Sickle]

Didn't you JUST say in the same post that a mislynch would be better. It would shed some light on who may be potential scum.

[mykonian]

mykonian what is your opinion of this post by Pierre:

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?

Noticed this now, what I am trying to do is give a point. Something simply to consider and take in mind for later, if it does result in a case where AS needs some sort of proof.

But now, your turning me the other way right now. That post in itself sounded awkward. You've just tried to buckle someone trying to help under pressure, though you were initially arguing with AntiSemantic in the first place.

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

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

First impression was a towny that feels he is manipulated. A bit paranoid, tbh. Not great play, but certainly towny, since scum wouldn't be so paranoid.

[mykonian]

game theory: we want a scumlynch.

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.

Yes, but you do not decide to lynch someone JUST to get information. We want to AVOID a mislynch if possible.

We just have to come to terms that we are likely to mislynch and to realize that a mislynch is still better for us than a no lynch.

You're quickness to lynch someone for information tells me you are scummy and are trying to get us to lynch one of our own.

I have trouble to see what the connection between quote and post is. Pierre shows in the first why he also told the possible town explanations, to give every information he got. In the post he gets accused of trying to mislynch. This doesn't follow. Sure,

if he wanted a mislynch

it would be sure scum. However, never said that, and this is as close as you get to a strawman. (bolded is the implied accusation of wanting a mislynch,).

On the last part: pierre was actually hitting the brakes by also telling why we should not lynch him, so we could think about it. Alviaran certainly doesn't look good here, and I would very much like to hear why he thought it necesary to attack pierre by saying he actually wanted a mislynch.

[Alviaran]

game theory: we want a scumlynch.

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.

Yes, but you do not decide to lynch someone JUST to get information. We want to AVOID a mislynch if possible.

We just have to come to terms that we are likely to mislynch and to realize that a mislynch is still better for us than a no lynch.

You're quickness to lynch someone for information tells me you are scummy and are trying to get us to lynch one of our own.

I have trouble to see what the connection between quote and post is. Pierre shows in the first why he also told the possible town explanations, to give every information he got. In the post he gets accused of trying to mislynch. This doesn't follow. Sure,

if he wanted a mislynch

it would be sure scum. However, never said that, and this is as close as you get to a strawman. (bolded is the implied accusation of wanting a mislynch,).

On the last part: pierre was actually hitting the brakes by also telling why we should not lynch him, so we could think about it. Alviaran certainly doesn't look good here, and I would very much like to hear why he thought it necesary to attack pierre by saying he actually wanted a mislynch.

Because he did. I have no idea where the post went, but he did. Something happened to the post because I swear he had a vote on top of it in what I quoted. And now he has something about needing time there. I have no idea what happened. Can it have been an edit from the time I saw the post and read the thread to when I hit "quote"? (Under those circumstances, my post would quote what was actually there, not what was on my screen and thus outdated)

[iamausername]

-=stands2reason has been prodded=-

[mykonian]

alv: edits are not possible by players, and the mod won't do it unless the game itself is in danger. So that is no way out for you. Please get me a quote, hard evidence, where he actually said he wanted a mislynch. Since you confirmed in the last post that was actually what he said.

[Einlanzers]

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.

Yes, but you do not decide to lynch someone JUST to get information. We want to AVOID a mislynch if possible. We just have to come to terms that we are likely to mislynch and to realize that a mislynch is still better for us than a no lynch.

You're quickness to lynch someone for information tells me you are scummy and are trying to get us to lynch one of our own.

Didn't you JUST say in the same post that a mislynch would be better. It would shed some light on who may be potential scum.

Pierre he said that a mislynch would be better than a no lynch, but a scumlynch should be the thing you are ultimately looking for. He is also saying/inferring that you seem to want a lynch regardless of scum/town status to just get information. I am also getting a similar vibe now.

@Everyone, this could just be by scumdar not working properly, but I'm just getting a town read from stands2reason. Granted most people here are new to the game, but I just feel that his mistakes are mainly new-player-related. On the other hand, I am seeing a lot of scummy actions from Pierre and I'm going to put a

FoS Pierre Sickle

for now because I don't want to put him at L-1 without proper reason/explanation.

[mykonian]

wait, einlanzers, that quote of pierre was after alv's post. I would like to hear from him where he got the idea from that pierre wants a mislynch.

[mykonian]

and yeah, we disagree about s2r and pierre. I think pierre doesn't defend will, you call it scummy, I think s2r lurks, you see a newby in it

anyway, my other target, AS, where is he?

[Pierre Sickle]

I WAS suspecting AS, but then some other people had some stronger scummy motives. But that's my two cents, I'm mainly posting to show my presence

[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

[Spinach]

Just posting to say that I am back and the internet is working fine. I promise a post late tonight/tomorrow.

[swimmer4lyfe]

mykonian what is your opinion of this post by Pierre:

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?

Noticed this now, what I am trying to do is give a point. Something simply to consider and take in mind for later, if it does result in a case where AS needs some sort of proof.

But now, your turning me the other way right now. That post in itself sounded awkward. You've just tried to buckle someone trying to help under pressure, though you were initially arguing with AntiSemantic in the first place.

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

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

First impression was a towny that feels he is manipulated. A bit paranoid, tbh. Not great play, but certainly towny, since scum wouldn't be so paranoid.

Ok then question for you: why do you rule off a new player that is paranoid as not possibly being scum.

I'm just curious how your mind works

[Einlanzers]

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

FoS alvarian, and stands2reason

FOS?

FoS: Finger of Suspicion. It's your way of saying "I think you are quite scummy, but not enough to put a vote on you." Or could also be "I think you're REALLY scummy, but don't want to hammer (or L-1) you until you claim (or defend)."

[SemanticError]

I want to be posting more than I am, I swear. It's just exam season. Give me a few days with slower posting to get through the initial stress/cramming.

@Pierre:

I WAS suspecting AS, but then some other people had some stronger scummy motives. But that's my two cents, I'm mainly posting to show my presence

It's great that you're here and all, but people are talking about you a lot. Do you not have any opinions? Care to clarify your stance on the mis-lynch debate?

On the Pierre issue:

I'm still having a hard time getting off this fence. He's hard to read. Either:

Scenario 1) He could be scum, in which sense the alleged deflections, slightly jumpy voting and choosing not to respond to some allegations is perfectly reasonable.

Scenario 2) He's just acting newbie-like, which makes him a little inconsistent and less strategically sound.

Both interpretations make sense. The more he ignores, the more I lean towards Scenario 1, but it's only D1, so I still don't know if I have enough to feel reasonable in a lynch.

I hate day one.

On me vs. Porkchop:

I could respond directly to a few of the points PE made at the top of p5 and will if people feel it's necessary. However, the more we argue the less game relevant it seems to get, and the more it feels like we're just digging trenches and going nowhere. I made a poorly communicated joke and (arguably >.>) subsequent defense, arguing ensued.