Newbie 920: Mafia in Newbietown (Game over! Town wins!)

[Netopalis]

As I said earlier, I'm not sure about any of my reads, but I must press them anyway if they're to have any effect.

[Zachrulez]

7th vote count of day 1:

Netopalis - 1 (Carl Sagan)
Carl Sagan - 1 (Fiyr)

Not voting (Julano, mariomaster777, FluffyGiggles, Legions, Unsight, Netopalis, Mcgriddle)

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

If I made any mistakes, let me know asap.

DL is March 16 at 9am central.

[McGriddle]

Vote: Carl Sagan

for my reasons before. I am growing impatient

[Netopalis]

You backed down awfully quickly there, didn't you, Griddle? Also, you didn't provide a lot of reasoning for that. You did the same thing earlier...That concerns me quite a bit.

Vote: McGriddle

[Julano]

Which reasons?

[Julano]

^ to mcgriddle, simulpost

[Unsight]

Which reasons?

I'm guessing these:

Sagan, how can you come in here, throw all these accusations and suspicions around and not be back on to explain yourself or even defend yourself? You are actively lurking, I can tell. Get in here now and explain yourself.

I agree with McGriddle that Carl's behavior is irritating, but since we're still early on into the game it's hard for me to tell whether it's really "active lurking" or just lack of posting time for Carl.

[mariomaster777]

I certainly have my gut feelings at this point, but felt a post was at least warranted so I can stay in the conversation at hand. I'm not comfortable sharing who I suspect, as I can't make a strong enough argument to cast my vote. You'll remember from my answer to Unsight's questions that I don't like publicly sharing my suspect list.

How do you see yourself helping the town if you're only making posts to "stay in the conversation?" How is that any different than lurking?

It's not any different from lurking. In fact it's my playing style not to vote until I am confident (ideally VERY confident) in my thought process. I like to be sure before making accusations. Some may disagree with this playing style, claiming that the only way to get reactions out of people is to accuse them. I do see merit in this playing style, but its just something I am not strong in and as such avoid making accusations without what I feel is good evidence.

I fail to understand why lurking has such a negative connotation to it. Yes, I could be perceived as "unhelpful," but I would much rather be overly cautious and avoid giving scum the opportunity to send the town on a wild goose chase based off of any flawed logic that may be posted. I don't want to contribute negatively towards the town's efforts and not know it. I am very used to people bandwagon voting on the other site I play on, and as such have adapted my playing style to avoid saying something that could start a chain of votes in the wrong direction simply because I misread a situation.

Perhaps I should readjust my playing style for this game because it seems like the risk of blind bandwagon voting is much lower for our group of players.

[Netopalis]

Mario: Yeah, don't expect us to just walk into a lynch blindly. Rest assured that the only time that a quicklynch can happen is close to deadline or when the number of town and the number of scum are ridiculously close. As for lurking, the mafia's biggest concern is preventing themselves from being outed. One way of doing this is to post less than you normally would, since fewer posts = fewer content = fewer reasons to attack you. Does that make sense?

[mariomaster777]

Oh it makes perfect sense. It's just my playing style. I seem to make few posts, but they are usually of sufficient length to properly contribute.

[Unsight]

It's not any different from lurking. In fact it's my playing style not to vote until I am confident (ideally VERY confident) in my thought process. I like to be sure before making accusations. Some may disagree with this playing style, claiming that the only way to get reactions out of people is to accuse them. I do see merit in this playing style, but its just something I am not strong in and as such avoid making accusations without what I feel is good evidence.

I fail to understand why lurking has such a negative connotation to it. Yes, I could be perceived as "unhelpful," but I would much rather be overly cautious and avoid giving scum the opportunity to send the town on a wild goose chase based off of any flawed logic that may be posted. I don't want to contribute negatively towards the town's efforts and not know it. I am very used to people bandwagon voting on the other site I play on, and as such have adapted my playing style to avoid saying something that could start a chain of votes in the wrong direction simply because I misread a situation.

Perhaps I should readjust my playing style for this game because it seems like the risk of blind bandwagon voting is much lower for our group of players.

Imagine if everyone played that way though Mario. An entire game filled with people just sitting back and watching is going to be a pretty boring game because no one would be talking.

Also remember that we're all here to have fun (I am anyway) so for me it's less fun when people don't talk. I want to catch the scum and get a win at the end, but if I don't have fun getting there then what's the point?

Please be more active, question more, and generally show us what your keen, scumhunting mind is capable of. I'll have a better time, I'm sure a few other players will as well, and you might find that you do too. ^_^

That doesn't just go for mario either, that goes for everyone. These games are as fun (or unfun) as we choose to make them.

[Unsight]

Motivational speech over! Back to the game!

You backed down awfully quickly there, didn't you, Griddle? Also, you didn't provide a lot of reasoning for that. You did the same thing earlier...That concerns me quite a bit.

Vote: McGriddle

You value logic Netopalis, yet while McGriddle warranted a vote for not fully explaining himself then why didn't Fiyr when she voted Carl Sagan for:

You've made one post and already i think your acting scummy.
Normally, I would like to hear more from you before voting but at this point in the game there is no danger in

Vote: Carl Sagan

That's even less than McGriddle's vote yet you conveniently ignored it and then even came back around with a Town read on her on the next page. From my POV, logically speaking, you should have responded to Fiyr the same way you just responded to McGriddle or vice versa.

So, I'd like you to explain why:

A) You didn't address Fiyr's vote at all.
and
B) You just voted McGriddle for doing almost exactly what Fiyr did.

[FluffyGiggles]

Kay, first off-I'm a girl, second, this

Oh, and I'm not sure about Fiyr at this point. In four consecutive posts, he went from 'while I disagree with some of your points, you do raise a good argument' to 'You've made one post and already i think your acting scummy.' Could be legitimate defence of someone he thinks is town, or could be buddying.

To use another term I found while using mafiawiki to verify my definition of buddying, FomS: Fiyr (Finger of Minor Suspicion for anyone who hasn't gone through the wiki.)

How is this defence or buddying? I'm

attacking

.
IMO anyway. (in my opinion)
I thought he was mostly scummy except, that one point caught my eye as good as no one had really challenged Netopalis at all.

In reponse:

Heh, thanks. Just doing my job. Of course,

several

of you won't be thanking me in a few days, given that I *am* going to have to start attacking somebody...

You say "several" but there are only two mafia in an F11 or are you including the people you're shooting at night?

Do you only attack two people each game, Unsight?

- (FYI - post was 115, Fiyr quoted a long post which I removed to make this post more readable)

#7- He is not manipulating us; he asked us questions, stated a good reason why he was not going to answer them himself, and that was fine with us.

Also, like Unsight said you use the word 'energy' alot, you make it seem like we have very limited energy to expend and that this really

is

one day and we don't get sleep and breaks inbetween.

Though, you do make a good point, with him being IC it's easier to trust him. (if that is what you were getting at.)

Meh, they're not so intricate. The problem is that they are usually so well-known that nobody ever actually does them. Many players (myself included) have a list of "common tells" that they don't share for this very reason - once they're made public, they lose all of their value. One example of a "common tell" that's, well, commonly cited is WIFOM, or Wine in Front of Me - it's an attempt to engage the town in circular logic through a meaningless set of arguments. For an example of WIFOM (and, indeed, the scene that named it), please see the following YouTube clip:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU

Post subject: 5

such as WIFOM,

Introducing confusing jargon without definition erodes town's energy.

...just thought i'd point this out too.

I believe Netopalis posted this:

Well done, Sagan. I'm glad to see that you're willing to challenge authority. In response, I would contend that I have explained everything that I have presented. Also, it should be noted that McGriddle technically cannot talk about another game in progress, and likewise, I cannot defend myself on that point. I would assure you, though, that I have a very good reason for pressing my case on him in that game.

I am saddened about the fact that you have not chosen to answer the questions presented.

I will take that into account in my analysis, which will be posted after my Legal Research quiz. Expect a post about 6 or 7 PM EST.

meaning he would talk more about Sagan's post later

As far as I can tell, your major contributions thus far have been to defend Netopalis from a range of shaky and jovial arguments. And the only person you're attacking was Netopalis' most aggressive (and possibly least founded in logic) questioner. Furthermore, the part I bolded emphasises a ... questionable attack on Sagan/defence of Netopalis, where you look like trying to speak for the group to try and establish your opinion as established fact, thus anyone reading through will indeed believe that the town was supportive of Netopalis' actions when that may not be the case.

So, why are you devoting most of your energy to defending Netopalis?

[Netopalis]

Unsight: My problem is this: Fiyr votes for Sagan almost immediately after his post (Not her first post after it, but no posts intervene between her first post after his and her vote for him). Griddle does so 3 pages after he votes, when he's made a lot of other posts, and only does it when pushed on why he suspects Sagan. Also, Griddle is showing a very disturbing trend of only committing to a position when pressured.

[McGriddle]

I had 8 posts before I established my suspicions on Sagan. My biggest thing is he came on, threw out his suspicions and disappeared. Post 168 I clearly don't know if its you or Sagan. I unvoted. You came back and defended yourself against my accusations fairly well, Sagan has done nothing of the sort, so naturally I put my vote on who I think is scum, Sagan. You seem awfully upset that I don't see you as scum as much as I see Sagan as scum, and furthermore, my original vote on you was from the RVS, so technically Sagan was my first real vote.

[Carl Sagan]

Town survival is my only agenda. As town, we are faced with the choice of who to eliminate. I wouldn't want end up in a grave because I ignored a statement indicating an acceptance of the role of mafia in any way. While it may well be the case that Netopalis was overzealous in his IC support, the truth of the matter is that the game was started and he introduced this issue. Given his experience and obvious command of the game, "Netopalis as mafia" is a very frightening proposition. Likewise his rush to communicate the issues and set his "expertise" showed a lack of finesse that might end up taxing the energy of town moving forward.

Likewise @ Fyir OMGUS=FoS for defending his buddy.

[Carl Sagan]

my original vote on you was from the RVS, so technically Sagan was my first real vote.

Game began on Subject Post 4
Your vote was on Subject Post 6
Likewise posted as a vote count without objection from Zachrulez.

To maintain that your vote wasn't real is absurd.

Being an experienced player, you're probably as dangerous playing Mafia as Netopolis is. While I pointed to your testimony as to Netopolis' past play, my tipping point was his confessing a tolerance for mafia. That being said, this turn around requires another FoS @ McGriddle

[Netopalis]

Sagan: Do you not agree, though, given the fact that I am in a teaching role, that it would be unethical of me to not discuss the possibility? I feel rather like I need to because in those games where I AM ICing and Mafia, I want to make sure that I am not accused of using my position to win more games.

[McGriddle]

my original vote on you was from the RVS, so technically Sagan was my first real vote.

Game began on Subject Post 4
Your vote was on Subject Post 6
Likewise posted as a vote count without objection from Zachrulez.

To maintain that your vote wasn't real is absurd.

Being an experienced player, you're probably as dangerous playing Mafia as Netopolis is. While I pointed to your testimony as to Netopolis' past play, my tipping point was his confessing a tolerance for mafia. That being said, this turn around requires another FoS @ McGriddle

How is it absurd? I had a null tell on Netopalis so telll me why it is absurd.

[Julano]

I very much agree with FluffyGiggles' post about Fiyr.

- TOWN -
FluffyGiggles and Unsight seem to be adding the most that is meaningful, so appear town.
They are followed by Netopalis, who has lots of posts with some opinions, but nothing too analytical. The suspicion at the moment seems based solely on the fact that he has become a leader and would be dangerous if he is also mafia. True, but a very weak argument and not at all convincing.


While my opinion of Netopalis' alignment is pretty much neutral, there is no reason to think he is mafia and so I move on to everyone else with the assumption that everyone above is innocent.

- OTHER -
2/5 of these are mafia.
Fiyr, mariomaster, Carl Sagan, Legions, McGriddle.

Carl I thought before was town, but his follow up makes me less than convinced. Having said that, a mafia strategy of attacking the IC seems dangerous, so strategy-wise would probably be innocent.

Fiyr has posted a lot but said little? See Fluffy's post.
Fiyr: do you consider a weak argument to be a mafia tell?

McGriddle has also posted a lot but said little.

Finally we have mariomaster and Legions whose posts I don't think have said anything at all. How you guys think we're supposed to know if you're innocent I don't know...



p.s. FluffyGiggles, please could name your gender so that we can refer to you using a pronoun?

[Carl Sagan]

@Netopalis & McGriddle - a thought experiment, you are called to board an airplane, you present your ticket and say, "I'm not saying I'm a terrorist, but honestly, if I were, I'd be the best terrorist I could be."

Do you agree that if all in-game text can be used, all in-game text must be given at least some weight? Do you agree that even such thin evidence trumps random voting? I can't disregard this early evidence anymore than I can disregard a vote on the basis of a "null tell" (you might add this term to the wiki?) when it is being counted and a rush of other votes would have frozen it as such. (note I unbolded you when I quoted you so as not to violate the "bold is a true vote" rule...even in spirit.)

Perhaps the best teaching is done once someone asks a question? or simply through explaining the mechanics of what you are normally doing in the course of play? I read the guidelines in their entirety and my objection was in the last few lines. Frankly, I had to question if you read it in it's entirety or if you didn't understand it. My conservation of energy addresses the vigilance needed to read everything posted. Bloating the text with in-game, in-line, opinions dressed as fact only gives a forest to hide the trees in.

How many townies could reasonably be expected to make the statement you did...during the course of play?

[McGriddle]

@Netopalis & McGriddle - a thought experiment, you are called to board an airplane, you present your ticket and say, "I'm not saying I'm a terrorist, but honestly, if I were, I'd be the best terrorist I could be."

Do you agree that if all in-game text can be used, all in-game text must be given at least some weight? Do you agree that even such thin evidence trumps random voting? I can't disregard this early evidence anymore than I can disregard a vote on the basis of a "null tell" (you might add this term to the wiki?) when it is being counted and a rush of other votes would have frozen it as such. (note I unbolded you when I quoted you so as not to violate the "bold is a true vote" rule...even in spirit.)

Perhaps the best teaching is done once someone asks a question? or simply through explaining the mechanics of what you are normally doing in the course of play? I read the guidelines in their entirety and my objection was in the last few lines. Frankly, I had to question if you read it in it's entirety or if you didn't understand it. My conservation of energy addresses the vigilance needed to read everything posted. Bloating the text with in-game, in-line, opinions dressed as fact only gives a forest to hide the trees in.

How many townies could reasonably be expected to make the statement you did...during the course of play?

...wut?

[Carl Sagan]

@julano - I agree with your support of FluffyGiggles post. I've put a FoS on Fiyr as well. I disagree in using "jovial and shaky" to describe my reasoning in that it discounts the fact that none of my points are disproved, at least one was agreed to by you and that my first point was acknowledged as correct by Netopolis. Can you elaborate any specific issues you found FluffyGiggles and Unsight "helpful" with? As this game is progressing, I can give more slack to a new IC, but I'll need to be strongly convinced to change my vote after such a strong statement of mafia advocacy by Netopolis...

[Carl Sagan]

@McGriddle not constructive and dismissive. Thanks for spamming the list with a quote.

[Zachrulez]

Bump for vote count.