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

[Netopalis]

Sagan: Why do you feel that you need doc protection? Do you even know what the doctor does? And no, I didn't take it as a personal attack because 1) it was a joke and 2) as a law student, I've developed a rather thick skin. I'm also not sure what continued abuse you are referring to. Regardless, I do not need you to defend me - I am more than capable of handling myself in this game.

[McGriddle]

@McGriddle It was a counted vote. You haven't addressed your culpability with an apology for your personal attacks. I was serious after the first post stating that the game had started. Have you started getting serious yet?

@Netopalis If you didn't take it as a personal attack you were abandoning your educational role in keeping the rules of the game enforced; thus illustrating the effects of lax enforcement as a result. It also set the tone for continued abuse by McGriddle.

I'll be here if you think of anything else. Likewise, if town does have a doctor, please give me some protection from these guys?

If you don't know what RVS stands for it mean

RANDOM

vote stage, it is in every game, so get used to it now. And who cares if it was a counted vote, nobody and I mean NOBODY will leave there RVS vote on someone who is at L-1 unless they have a real reason to vote, with the exception of noob-scum. And that last little tid bit made no sense there.

[Netopalis]

Griddle: Let's go ahead and put Sagan's fears to rest. Did you intend to insult me with your random vote? I didn't take it as such.

[Unsight]

I never voted Carl for being annoying. Not at all. When I voted him I did not think anything of his annoyance, now, sure he is annoying, but that's not why my vote is on him. We're on page 9 and still I have no good reads on anyone other than carl so theres my vote.

I can't read your mind and, unlike a face to face game, I can't read your body language either so something tends to get lost in translation.

Now while I can interpret things incorrectly, you can also help me to interpret them correctly by doing simple things such as posting your whole thought process. If you vote for someone using reasons X, Y, and Z which you've stated in the past then go ahead and restate them. It's a little extra typing for sure but no one is going to look at your post and misinterpret your vote that way. Some might disagree with your reasoning, but at least it won't be unclear.

[Unsight]

@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...

I noticed this earlier but didn't have a chance to comment on it.

This is a pet peeve of mine, but I really don't like it when people say "I need to be convinced" about anything in mafia. I believe that facts speak for themselves. If I lay out a good case that someone is scum, you should be able to look at the facts and make your decision. I shouldn't have to "convince" you of anything.

In fact, scum are usually the ones who need to be "convinced" because they can't look at the facts the same way pro-town players do. They see through bad arguments immediately because they know whether or not the person being attacked is scum. The result is that they need someone to "convince" them that a certain opinion is right.

FoS: Carl Sagan

[McGriddle]

Griddle: Let's go ahead and put Sagan's fears to rest. Did you intend to insult me with your random vote? I didn't take it as such.

Of course not, why would I want to insult you?

[McGriddle]

I never voted Carl for being annoying. Not at all. When I voted him I did not think anything of his annoyance, now, sure he is annoying, but that's not why my vote is on him. We're on page 9 and still I have no good reads on anyone other than carl so theres my vote.

I can't read your mind and, unlike a face to face game, I can't read your body language either so something tends to get lost in translation.

Now while I can interpret things incorrectly, you can also help me to interpret them correctly by doing simple things such as posting your whole thought process. If you vote for someone using reasons X, Y, and Z which you've stated in the past then go ahead and restate them. It's a little extra typing for sure but no one is going to look at your post and misinterpret your vote that way. Some might disagree with your reasoning, but at least it won't be unclear.

I understand, but what have I not said clearly? I thought all things I have said were clear. If I am unclear about anything, feel free to correct me or even get mad at me.

[Unsight]

I understand, but what have I not said clearly? I thought all things I have said were clear. If I am unclear about anything, feel free to correct me or even get mad at me.

Well, here are a couple examples:

Vote: Carl Sagan

for my reasons before. I am growing impatient

@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?

I'm sure you can see a few areas where you could have added a bit more.

And, by the way, I'm not going to get mad at someone whose name makes me giggle.

(though I will vote/lynch you if I think you're scum)

[McGriddle]

I understand, but what have I not said clearly? I thought all things I have said were clear. If I am unclear about anything, feel free to correct me or even get mad at me.

Well, here are a couple examples:

Vote: Carl Sagan

for my reasons before. I am growing impatient

@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?

I'm sure you can see a few areas where you could have added a bit more.

And, by the way, I'm not going to get mad at someone whose name makes me giggle.

(though I will vote/lynch you if I think you're scum)

Haha noted.

So, to explain my vote on Sagan, I think he is scum based off my previous reads:

Iso 26 on myself:

4. Now *RAAAWRRRRR* 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.

then 30

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.

that was to neto

then 33

@Carl not answering my question and being an ass. Thanks for making all 4 posts meaningless

then you wanted to know about the ...wut, well that one I really couldn't understand what he was trying to tell me with that fluffy, and unhelpful post.

[FluffyGiggles]

Altogether I'm having trouble understanding FluffyG's posts. They are lengthy and wordy. I'm sorry could you break them down maybe? If not, I'll just try again. Thanks.

You seem to be spending a lot of your time in-thread defending Netopalis from arguments, most of which were either raised as jokes or from Sagan.

Also, when you said "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.

", it made me a little antsy, as you seem to be putting considerable effort into making Netopalis look town and give the impression that everyone thinks so.

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.

Once again.

I AM A GIRL

. I do not mind to much if you post it wrong but it makes things very confusing.

Also, my "defences" are actually attacks directed towards your case. Looking back, I realize that it did indeed look like i was defending Netopalis, but that was not my intention.

FluffyG-

Could be legitimate defence of someone he thinks is town, or could be buddying

I

still

don't get this. You did not actually clear anything up. Scum want misunderstandings, but then again it could be all me. [/b]

I'm not really buying the "my defences were actually attacks" as you were defending Netopalis from joke arguments before Sagan came into the thread. (see the Unsight quote from post 187).

And my quote means that you could either legitimately believe that Netopalis was town and thus you needed to defend him, or that it could be an attempt to 'buddy up' to the most experienced player in the thread.

[Zachrulez]

9th vote count of day 1:

Carl Sagan - 1 (Mcgriddle)
Netopalis - 1 (Carl Sagan)
Mcgriddle - 1 (Netopalis)

Not voting (Julano, mariomaster777, FluffyGiggles, Legions, Unsight, Fiyr)

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

If I made any mistakes, let me know asap.

DL is March 16 at 9am central.

[Julano]

Vote: Legions

Say something.

Can you elaborate any specific issues you found FluffyGiggles and Unsight "helpful" with?

Scroll up the page. I find that their posts are analytical and make sense.

McGriddle, would you mind posting a list of players and your thoughts? Also please could you name a gender too.

Fiyr: do you consider a weak argument to be a mafia tell?

[Fiyr]

Fiyr: do you consider a weak argument to be a mafia tell?

Sorry, I think I missed this. A weak argument should definitely put up a red flag for pro-town players. Most likely it would signify scum, but I have seen games where town was brutally attacked/lynched because they made a bad argument. A bad argument early in a game would not be too suspicious as it could have the intention of starting the game.

I'm not really buying the "my defences were actually attacks" as you were defending Netopalis from joke arguments before Sagan came into the thread. (see the Unsight quote from post 187).

My attacks were aimed at Sagan because of his bad case. I don't see how defending someone I see as town makes me suspicious.

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?

This is an honest question. I was wondering about Unsight's playstyle and seeing if she only asked questions until she was sure, then attacked the same two people all game. It is possible. This was a question at Unsight not a sarcastic defense of Netopalis.

And my quote means that you could either legitimately believe that Netopalis was town and thus you needed to defend him, or that it could be an attempt to 'buddy up' to the most experienced player in the thread

Okay, I see. It seemed like you were talking about Sagan. Netopalis I have fairly good town read on, but like I have stated before, it was more of an attack against cases I thought were bad.

Also, when you said "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.", it made me a little antsy, as you seem to be putting considerable effort into making Netopalis look town and give the impression that everyone thinks so.

I didn't intend for it to look that way, but no one had really disagreed at the time and so, I was under the impression we all mostly agreed.

Why did you unvote him? Do you believe he's innocent or do you have a more worthy suspect in mind?

For now, I don't want my vote on him. My read on Sagan is shaky at best and since there is another vote/more suspicion on him(McGriddle), I don't want to leave a vote on him in case I am gone for an extended time and help lynch someone I don't

really

have a scum read on. I am somewhat neutral on his read, I don't have anyone else who comes to mind as more scummy at the moment though.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I know why you voted and I know why McGriddle voted. That wasn't even a question. Just like I said your vote was hasty, McGriddle's vote was equally hasty (more of a "you're annoying so I'll vote you" vote if you ask me).

Netopalis seemed to react differently to two very similar votes and his response was that he voted McGriddle for changing position when cornered. McGriddle turns around and says it was because he felt Carl was lurking during that time. Both answers are... plausible though neither is really a "good" answer IMO.

Oh, I thought you believed neither of us had presented any reason for voting Sagan.

@Fiyr I took a shot at your gender, only to "Ms. Fiyr"... My apologies. I too dislike large blocks of text.

Thats okay.

My original vote on Carl Sagan was a mix of pressure to post more and explain what he was talking about as he was somewhat unclear.

This too, is a reason for my vote.

[Julano]

Wow, if your post had been 15 minutes later we would have gone 24 hours with no new activity.

I would be interested to see a list of players with thoughts from you too, Fiyr.


Also, I'm not sure how much pressure a vote adds if it is announced as a pressure vote.

[Unsight]

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?

This is an honest question. I was wondering about Unsight's playstyle and seeing if she only asked questions until she was sure, then attacked the same two people all game. It is possible. This was a question at Unsight not a sarcastic defense of Netopalis.

I thought you were being snarky (because I was being snarky in that post), but if that's an honest question then I'll answer it.

Ideally, yes. I will only attack two people and those two people will be scum. Then we win on Day 2. Realistically, I attack as many people as necessary to win the game.

[Unsight]

Why did you unvote him? Do you believe he's innocent or do you have a more worthy suspect in mind?

For now, I don't want my vote on him. My read on Sagan is shaky at best and since there is another vote/more suspicion on him(McGriddle), I don't want to leave a vote on him in case I am gone for an extended time and help lynch someone

I don't

really

have a scum read on

. I am somewhat neutral on his read,

I don't have anyone else who comes to mind as more scummy at the moment though.

How is it that there is no one more scummy than the person you don't have a scum read on?

I agree with Julano, I'd like to see a list of players from you with your opinions on them. From your last few posts, it seems like we've managed to go 10 pages without you being able to produce one person that you're actually even suspicious of.

I'm not going to lie to you; that's really bad.

I'll go ahead and quote a past post of mine to explain why:

I'm keeping up with what's going on as best as I can, but overall just have a bad nose for sniffing out suspicious activity at the moment.

Ironically enough, the ones who have the most trouble scumhunting are often the scum themselves. If you can't scumhunt then you're either an unhelpful townie or an unhelpful scummer and both end with you getting lynched.

FoS: Legions

[Unsight]

Also, in looking back through my own posts for that last quote, I just noticed that Post Subject 229 and Post Subject 131 contradict each other due to some rather poor choices in words. I figured I would address this before someone else looked at it and said "ZOMG scummy!"

I said in Post Subject 10 that my playstyle would be a little inconsistent as I'm still looking for the right balance that fits mafiascum.net and there's an example of it. I've done a lot of thinking since 131 and I've decided that I will stand by 229 because I think it's a better way to play.

Plus it would be really hypocritical of me to FoS someone and then turn around to say "Do as I say, not as I do." Sorry about that.

[mariomaster777]

Note to self: Don't disappear over the weekend. I got a lot of catching up to do.

[mariomaster777]

Ok. Those homework assignments took WAY longer than expected. I was also on duty tonight (I'm a resident assistant), and a few things came up after I made the above post. It definitely cut into my "catching up time." Let me be as honest as I can in my current situation.

It's 3:30am right now. I just spent about 2 hours rereading the entire thread and taking notes. They are sitting on my computer in a notepad file. But they are a complete jumbled mess right now and need some organization before posting. I'll share my thoughts tomorrow. I'm starting to see with this game that it is really stupid of me to "wait until I am VERY sure before making an accusation." With all the posting, I keep forgetting that it's still Day 1, and it's going to be near impossible to be "VERY sure" about anything.

I have two exams next week. 1 on Tuesday, 1 on Wednesday. I get out of class tomorrow at 3pm. I promise to share my thoughts within an acceptable time frame (say before 5pm) I'll try to continue contributing, but until Wednesday hits, I might not have a chance to check the thread.

[mariomaster777]

The two exams meaning "THIS week" not next week. Sorry.

[Carl Sagan]

I'm starting to see with this game that it is really stupid of me to "wait until I am VERY sure before making an accusation." With all the posting, I keep forgetting that it's still Day 1, and it's going to be near impossible to be "VERY sure" about anything.

My vote for Netopolis may seem overly strict in the interpretation of the rules, but as mariomaster777 points out, actual evidence is hard to come by and we must end a life. A townie saying he would play Mafia to it's fullest, and having the experience this townie has. A vote for Netopolis weeds out a wolf among we newbie sheep.

[Carl Sagan]

As I've been taxed by the energy spent in vigilance against Mafia attacking our town, I've found a way that saves me some effort. I click the printer icon circle under the post title. Don't worry, it won't print. But it will format everything...yes everything, on one long scrolling page if you click See: All Posts. Then you can do a Find (Ctrl + F) for your name and just keep hitting Find Next to see what people have been saying about you. It also scrolls up and down nicely without all the jewelry of profile pictures and interface and menu buttons. Hope this tip helps keep your energy up while fighting scum.

[Netopalis]

You are seeming to imply that my disclaimer is an indicator of my being in the mafia. Logically speaking, doesn't this seem foolish? There are two options:

1) I post it in every game I IC, in which case it should not be taken as a scumtell, or

2) I post it in every game I IC as mafia, in which case I would be an extremely stupid person

Tell me, which do you think is more likely?

[Unsight]

My vote for Netopolis may seem overly strict in the interpretation of the rules, but as mariomaster777 points out, actual evidence is hard to come by and we must end a life. A townie saying he would play Mafia to it's fullest, and having the experience this townie has.

A vote for Netopolis weeds out a wolf among we newbie sheep.

Did I misunderstand you or did you just say you're voting him because he's an IC?

[Zachrulez]

bump