Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Akira]

/confirm

The fact that he's "pirate-ey" doesn't mean anything, and it looks to me like you're pretty sure he's a townsperson. That post of yours makes me think you're mafia, but I want more opinions before I jump to conclusions.

[Akira]

@MichelSableheart: Since this is my first game, I don't really have a good idea of what "usually happens" on day one, so my post was simply an attempt to get something going, and to have a better idea of who I should suspect. I don't really suspect him that much.

But I do agree that mafia are usually more prudent than townies, and prefer not to start discussion.

[Akira]

Guybrush, that request of yours should be a rule.

I personally don't think random voting is a good idea, but neither is not voting at all.
IMO after 3 weeks of talking, we'll probably have a good enough idea of who to vote, without resorting to "eenie meanie miney moe"

[Akira]

Lurking may seem to be a mafia tactic, but the fact that we revealed this in the thread means that now it's safer to say that active lurking is a mafia tactic. After all, no scum in his right state of mind would lurk after hearing people say "lurking is for scums."
And it's always gonna be useless for a townie, that's for sure.

@Valk: Looks to me like you're avoiding a "good discussion".
2k3 says: "Yes, discussion is nice, but the good discussions (one's that actually help) don't even start until after an RVS."

[Akira]

((Sorry, I pressed submit by accident, this is the continuation of my post :p))

And you (Valk) say: "So what is the point in even starting one." Yet you agree that "good discussions" start after RVS. It makes no sense (if you're a townie).

Oh and this is my first game of mafia ever, not just the first on the site.

[Akira]

@Valk: Oh, I see, it still sounds a bit distorted but it doesn't matter much now.

I have a question for veterans: when people decide to RVS, do they only release their random vote at the end of the phase or do they directly accuse them during discussion?

[Akira]

Heh, Akira-Kira, I hope there'll be a Death Note mafia running after this one.

@Aurorus: Don't believe I wasn't aware of that. I simply didn't point it out in my post because I wanted scums to fall for it and start lurking. But you pointed it out now, so it's become redundant. Regarding your vote, I must say that I agree that 2k3's style of play is very cautious, silent, and not particularly contributing to the scumhunt.

But I thought it was quite peculiar that you started by defending 2k3 against BAZZ's accusation and ended up voting for him. Are you voting for your fellow scum believing that no one will do the same? Are you trying to avoid the fact that you and 2k3 are on the same side? I need an explanation.

Oh, and is unvoting nothing more than canceling your previous vote?

[Akira]

This whole thing between Aurorus and 2k3 can only be clarified by 2k3 himself, so I'll wait until then before accusing one of the two.

I have another thought: is Loaka Mossi lurking? Or is this just inactivity due to personal reasons. His only posts thus far were:

/confirm

I also think that the RVS is pointless, becuase it doesn't start good discussion, and it seems to throw suspicion on townies more often than scum. And when someone is randomly voted for, they can't properly defend themeselves, and end up looking like scum.

Opinions?

[Akira]

@Valk: When he said that Valk and Loaka

seem

to be guilty of "this", was he referring to being mafia or to being one of those people who are against RVS yet don't make accusations?

[Akira]

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

[Akira]

Akira; in your last post, you seemed to suggest that either 2k3

or

I was scum. What has changed since your ISO6, in which you thought we were scum buddies?

Well, the idea of you two being scum buddies didn't last much, simply because the discussion which followed between you two was way too, let's say, "realistic". Two scums could never have faked that argument.

I know all 4 can't be scum, so I think the 2 who are most likely scum are both you and zauper. I think zauper's vote gave it away more than anything else. Why else would someone just BW like zauper did, especially when we're still questioning each other? My guess is he was trying to protect his scum-buddy, AV.

@2k3: Now, I'm not defending or anything but I'd like to point this out.
You believe zauper and Aurorus are scum buddies. But I'd like to draw your attention to my post and to zauper's response to it.

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it, honestly.

My post can be considered to be against Aurorus, since I considered the possibility of him being the actual scum. Yet zauper agreed with it. Would he really have agreed if he was Aurorus' scum buddy?
Or is this, as someone suggested, a mere attempt to defend himself against valid accusations?

[Akira]

I personally discard the idea that AV and zauper are scum buddies, because even before his ISO5 where he agreed with my AV accusation, he's even questioned him directly in his ISO1.

zauper, I have a question for you:
What's your opinion on Aurorus now that most of his suspicion seems to have faded away?

@Michel: Is your vote based on nothing more than your deep need of an answer to your questions? Was that what you meant by "pressure"?

@Loaka: It's my first game of mafia ever too, you shouldn't get nervous. Just read your role and come and express your own opinions on the prime suspects.
Your attitude might indicate you being scum, but you might also be a cop or a doc. (It explains your "not knowing what to do") I mean, if you were a mere vanilla townie, you wouldn't have gotten so agitated.

FoS: LoakaMossi

Oh and am I allowed to FoS 2 players?

[Akira]

EBWOP: What's "BW"?? It's not on the abbreviation list...

It means Bandwagon. ~ Hayl

[Akira]

This one caught my eye, and I haven't seen others comment on this.
It's not a good idea to discuss out loud who might be a cop or a doc. (at least until there's cop\doc claiming)
Yes, townies should take that into consideration (because you'll think twice before voting for them),
but on the other hand - you are giving clues to scum. And scum will be more than happy to find power roles.

One of scum's main objective is to find power roles, so this is not looking good for you.
Are you looking for a reaction out of him, so you could better conclude if he is a doc\cop, so you could try to lynch\nightkill him?
Are you signaling your scum partner so (s)he would be careful about this possibility as well?

I'll now read the rest of the thread.

Well, as you can see, I didn't vote, I just FoS'd. This is simply because I considered the possibility of him/her being, if not scum, a cop/doc.
Loaka's position right now is very different from the prime mafia suspects. While people like zauper, 2k3 or Aurorus have an indication towards being scum, Loaka

could

also indicate being a cop/doc, if they exist, other than scum, which is why I didn't go ahead and vote.
I feel much more safe voting for one of the mafia-only suspects than the mafia-cop-doc suspect.

I agree that mafia's main goal would be to eliminate these power roles, but at the same time, an important objective for a townie is to protect them, which should explain my early discussion of power roles.

[Akira]

Wow, I never knew discussing power roles was so suspicious.

@Aurorus:

Okay, so I've had a look at Akira's posts, and now I have some questions. I've just put the ISO number there in case you're curious as to what prompted each question - I would have included the particular quotes, but it made the post look longer than it actually is ><

ISO#1: Do you think that anyone is guilty of not starting discussions? If so, who, and what do you make of them?
ISO#2: Do you think that it is a good idea to wait until the end of the three weeks to place your vote?
ISO#11: Just curious, but who is your secondary FoS if you have one?
ISO#13: Since we've broached the topic already, how do you think a townie can best protect a power role from the mafia?* I don't think that you've thought your reasoning through properly, but I'll wait for your answer before telling you why I think that.

*this is not advocating talking about

who

you think is a PR, but talking about a townie's role in the game. So we're safe.

ISO#1: If I had to pick someone, I'd probably pick Valk. I also considered you Aurorus, but the I/we difference between your first post and hers is what makes me tend to Valk. At the same time though, I don't strongly believe that avoiding good discussion is that much of a scum-tell, because, I admit it, my zauper accusation in my very first post was a little far-fetched.

ISO#2: Actually, that post of mine was nothing more than a misunderstanding of the rules. I thought that everyone had to discuss for 3 weeks and at the end everyone placed their vote. It didn't have anything to do with what's better and what's worse.

ISO#11: My second FoS is zauper, probably. Although he agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum.

ISO#13: The best way to protect them is to avoid voting for people who could be not only scum, but also a power role. I won't continue this discussion though.
Guybrush btw, you put two questions in that post of yours, so why did you scold me for answering?

-------

[Akira]

There's a difference between the RVS and your accusation of zauper (which isn't a scumtell), and purposefully avoiding answering questions (which, in my mind, is a scumtell). Could you be lowering the "importance" of good discussion because you think that you could be accused of going against a good discussion? If it's not that much of a scumtell, what defence do you make for people who avoid answering questions, or limit their engagement with "good discussions"?

(...)

It's good that you don't take "agreement" on face value, but can I ask for what reasons you believe Zauper to be scum? Reasons help arguments and cases develop (which is good for the town).

I meant that in Valk's case it wasn't much of a scumtell, because my post was far-fetched. Regarding other cases, I haven't actually ever seen someone avoid a question without saying "sorry, I was rereading and it took some time because I was busy with x" right after, so it's not that much of a scumtell from my perspective, simply because it's hard to distinguish "distraction" from "avoiding to answer".

Regarding zauper, my reasons are the same as everyone else's. His agreeing looks a lot like he's trying to look on the town's side when he probaby isn't. Other than that he often asks questions which were already answered, stating that he "wasn't satisfied with the reply".

[Akira]

@Guybrush:

Don't worry about it too much, I still appreciate how you didn't jump at me without considering that it could be because I'm a newbie.

@Everyone:

I'm leaving tonight for a vacation which could last up to 4 days. I'm going to do whatever I can to find a computer to use, but it won't be easy. This might result in me being prodded, but I'll be back after no more than 4/5 days, I promise, so maybe the prod won't be necessary.
And if anyone has any questions for me, please wait till I'm back before posting them (this doesn't mean I won't read the new posts).
So until then, happy scumming!

While I'm there, my vote will be on zauper, and my reasons are stated in post #185. (and I don't feel safe voting for Loaka) I would have asked some more questions first, but I don't have time left. I'll get to it once I get back.
VOTE: zauper

[Akira]

Okay I'm back: was expecting a few more pages, but I guess it's better this way (for me that is).

@Akira

I know you said to wait with questions, but here it is anyways, so it will be nice and ready when you come back:
You voted for zauper in your #188, stating your reasons in #185 (as everyone else's).
However, I (in my #178, where I analyzed you) mentioned that the case on zauper could have easily gone in your direction as well, since you did your share of agreeing with others too.
So, can you comment on why are his (zauper's) quotes of agreement different than yours that I found in my #178?
And if you thought that this is such a good reason to put a vote on someone, then how come you didn't defend from my observations in #178 about this?

Actually I never really saw myself as overly-agreeing. The agreeing argument that we've been using against zauper should have a good number of agreeing posts by the suspect (in this case zauper) to back it up, and IMO there are enough in zauper's case. Plus I didn't see him do much disagreeing either. Is 3 agreements in my case really that much? (I'm referring to your detailed read on me)
You judged my agreeing as null-tell in #178. Has this changed now?

I don't really understand your second question. I didn't defend myself because you said it was null-tell, so it looked to me as if there wasn't any need to defend myself. It would just seem stupid and scummy.

@Akira
-Early you say you believe Mafia are prudent with accusations.
-You later find Avox's tirade on 2k3 [not prudent actions] suspicious. Is this a sign that you may not have been too sure about that prudent line?
-I get that there's no rush, technically' but you've been in this game from the start, and you currently have no vote placed... fix it, please.

Let me start by welcoming you, omnino. It's good to see someone so active and dedicated has replaced Loaka.

Actually I never said that in my ISO#1. I said that they were prudent in general, not necessarily with accusations. It's different with accusations.
IMO when choosing who to accuse they're prudent and they make sure the argument they use can't be turned against them and, more importantly, can't get them voted (2k3 and Aurorus are an example). But once they choose who to accuse, and they're sure it's a good choice, they raise a pretty intense accusation.

@zauper: Do you believe I made up the V/LA? Or do you think my "BW" vote is the only thing scummy about me?

PS: Sorry for the long post, the more to re-read, the more to post, I guess.

[Akira]

@akira

ooBAZZoo found 4 quotes from zauper where he agreed (+ 1 backtracking).
I found 3 quotes from you where you agreed.
I'm not sure why you see it THAT different.

And, I'll say to you what I said to 2003 - when I use\borrow your logic (like I did here), then

you

need to defend it, and not me.
So that should answer your question - agreeing is a null-tell to

me

. That's why I don't find zauper that suspicious for his agreeing, nor did I find you suspicious for it.

But it is suspicious when a person who says that agreeing is suspicious has done fair share of agreeing himself.

So, I'm trying to see if you could vote yourself based on your own logic.
That's why you then should have defended, even if I stated it was a null-tell for me - because you obviously disagree.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me." It must be a personality trait, because now that I think about it, there wasn't much of a problem with stating what I thought.

But I do disagree with the bolded part of your post. I think it's actually less suspicious in that case than normal over-agreeing. If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

[Akira]

^I found this response hilariously scummy;

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

Town should have no reason to

not

acknowledge when they have done something wrong and hold their hands up and admit that they've acted suspiciously. By trying to hide that fact, and defend against a legitimate accusation even when you agree with the accusation, it just digs you into a deeper hole.

That's easy for you to say when you don't quote what I said right after that. I said that I simply made a bad decision and I didn't pay much attention to that part of the post because of him calling it null-tell. For me, it was a drop in the ocean, a mere detail amongst his giant

AKIRA READ

. So I decided to ignore it. Was it really so deeply necessary for me to post my thoughts on the matter??

If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

But the point is that you've agreed three times to Zauper's four times, which isn't that different. Can you state what you think the distinction between agreeing and over-agreeing is, so that there is no confusion? Because if you've said over-agreeing is suspicious, and yet have over-agreed (which is GB's accusation), then you've got something to answer for.

Furthermore, do you think that someone "over-disagreeing" is more likely to be town or scum? I.e., do you think that scum would disagree with something, even if they believed the point to be "true"?

I believe that almost every user in this thread has made around 2-3 agreements in one way or another. Apart from that, his 2k3 vote by persuasion was a possible scum-tell for me, and that vote was a result of one of his agreements. I'm not looking at the mere number of agreements. That's irrelevant. What matters IMO is the actual content. Also, he often didn't back up his agreements with some supporting evidence. ("

That's a valid point, I'm not sure how to address it, honestly

"). It's hard to describe really, but I hope you get the picture.

And I believe that at this point in the game, over-disagreeing is more suspicious than over-agreeing. It's a bit like lurking and active-lurking. I'm not sure if they would disagree even with posts that appear completely true to them. I guess it depends on if they benefit from it or not. I can't properly talk about scum's habits because of my lack of experience, so I'm bound to make some mistakes.

[Akira]

Hm. Scum will only hide their true agreement if it benefits them. When you initially tried to skim over the fact that something that you did was scummy, did that benefit you?

What are you referring to exactly?

This part of your response I have less problem with, but I'm curious.
I get the picture, but could you supply fragments from the rest of the posts that contribute to this feeling? You seem to have voted him for reasons already stated, without supplying many of your own (in ISO#15 when you place the vote, you even say "my reasons are the same as everyone else's"). Do you have anything of your own to add, or is it simply that you've been persuaded by others' posts?

His agreeing posts are these:

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

He didn't post any kind of reason as to why he thinks that liars should be lynched.

You're voting for 2k3 because you think he's scum since he said he'd vote, and since then hasn't appeared to you to be actively looking for scum? I suppose that's reasonable. He has been active, but hasn't been talking about substance, largely.

The first sentence makes me think he's about to contradict Aurorus on his vote, but instead he ends up agreeing. It made me think that he had a problem in mind with Aurorus' vote, but decided to not post it. This post of his looks overly-cautious for my tastes.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

He provided some back-up reasons here, but what seemed strange to me was that he seemed to be defending 2k3 (and attacking Aurorus) in most of the posts before this one, (ISO1, 2 and 3) but suddenly ended up being persuaded by the argument. This could also be because of an unconfident, weak personality (no offense), but it just seemed too much of a contradiction to me.

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it honestly.

I'd say this is another situation similar to the previous quote. He agrees with me on something which is against Aurorus (my ISO#9), even though he was agreeing with him during the Aurorus vs 2k3. Also, I expected him to at least lower his suspicions on 2k3 after agreeing with my post, but he didn't do anything of the sort.

This is what I think about zauper. I am now waiting for zauper to reply to my post #251. It'll help me get a better idea of why there are such problems with his posts. For now, I judged them as scummy, but it isn't crystal clear. I'd like to ask a couple of questions to confirm my theory.

[Akira]

In this post: I try to sort out my top four suspects into some kind of order, but fail miserably.

Akira

Akira is providing decent enough responses to warrant a lessening of suspicion on my part, but I'm not ready to unvote him until he's answered my questions. He's a slippery one, because he goes from posting small scummy posts to small townie posts in almost alternating fashion.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

I'm still referring back to this part of a previous post, where you identified a good reason for someone to suspect you, but then treated it as a null-tell.

From your last post, it would seem that you think that Zauper's agreement is suspicious in light of the extent to which he has disagreed? I.e. you think that his posts have shown him to be "against" me and my reasons, but that he used them to vote for 2k3? Would this mean that you are suggesting that someone's reads have to remain static? That their mind can't change? Or is it that Zauper's mind has changed either side of his vote, but that he hasn't unvoted? In that case, why not ask Zauper directly why he hasn't unvoted? (I've asked this question below for you)

You've said that you suspect him, and that you have your reasons. But your question in #251 is about how he sees your vote for him, not about your reasons for voting him. It seems as though you've accepted your initial reasons (reasons that others have stated before you?) as a solid given, and are now moving onto trying a new angle. Would this be a fair assessment?

I didn't think about it much, which is why I

thought

it would be better to ignore it. But I understand now that what would really have been a benefit was stating my opinion on the matter.
---
I do believe that reads can change, but I haven't seen it happen very often (in this game) so I believe zauper to be a bit more jumpy with his reads than the rest. When others had a certain opinion on someone, they kept it for at least a couple of posts, while with zauper I haven't seen it last more than one or two posts. But I'm curious to know too why his vote (or at least his opinion) on 2k3 hasn't changed.
---
I thought someone would eventually point that out. There will be some follow-up questions after that, and my current question (which, I know, seems to be a defense more than an offense) is just a way to see exactly how far he thinks I'd go if I was scum to avoid suspicion. So your assessment is truthful, because I am approaching the zauper case from a different angle.

[Akira]

Hello seth. I have a question for you:
Why did you add that "self-vote" part to post #276? I completely agree with Aurorus' comment on it, but you didn't counter it, so I'm not sure what to think about it.
Also, what do you think about lynch-all-liars?

Mod, omnino's unvote isn't listed.

[Akira]

Well, Aurorus beat me to the argument, but I have to clarify something.
@seth: I would like to know your history of mafia games, if possible. (I don't care what site, just how they ended up and what was your role).
Also, what's your read on Valk? I know this can be a strange question to answer, but I want to know if you see anything else other than poor play. (this is your opinion btw, not mine)

I really feel sorry for whoever gets to replace zauper.
I'm getting the slight feeling that maybe he gave up, seeing himself as the prime candidate.
@Experienced players: is giving up more sign of townie or scum, and is it usually accompanied by a roleclaim?

Mod omnino unvoted.

[Akira]

@Bazz: I know what you mean. But still the most townish thing to do would be to reply, IMO, so to me, what matters the most is if he replies or not. Besides, omnino did it too in his ISO#1.
No more comments on my question before seth's reply please.

And thanks for the clarification, Michel and Aurorus.

[Akira]

Welcome theperson, take your time reading the lengthy posts and make sure to remember to answer the (many) questions unanswered by zauper.

@Guybrush: Sorry for forgetting, I'll answer right away.

@akira

Could you explain to me this:
Akira:

"Although zauper agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum."

(#183)
Does that quote suggest that agreeing with you is a plus for him in your eyes?
But regardless of that plus, you still believe he's scum?
Correct me if I'm wrong with that interpretation.

My idea was that maybe it looked like a plus in his eyes, and he thought it would have made me less suspicious of him. I'm not sure if those were his intentions when agreeing with me or not, but I believe it to be a good possibility. It was a way for me to say "Sorry that won't work, I still suspect you".

[Akira]

Theperson, claim.

Okay, this is just weird. You have various questions to answer, and what do you post? An

order

to zauper/theperson to claim?? Is this some kind of distorted form of humor? Seriously, this makes me think you and him as the two scums. It explains why you Fos'd, but didn't vote, regardless of having various reasons to do so.

Time for MY order:

Seth, stop avoiding questions.

FoS: seth

(can't believe i didn't do this earlier.)

[Akira]

@seth:

Take a look at the post above me. You can clearly do better than simply saying "my read on Valk is townie, because we share the same role."
Yet I noticed something between you and Valk, something which could make up for my inexperience.

Valk's ISO#11:

Are you just not reading my posts? I made it abundantly clear, well at least to the best of my ability seeing as how people just have to put trust in others at this early stage of the game, that I'm town, based on the next few lines in the exact same quote of mine that you used.

She's using the "isn't it obvious that I'm town?" argument, just like seth did in practically every post he wrote which had more than 3 words in it. This leads me to believe that this trait isn't a personality trait, but a "role trait", in other words something that two people sharing the same role are likely to do. Further proof of this is the big difference in personality between seth and Valk.
This means that I'll be using this as my prime tool to judge you.

@ Michel, Aurorus and Guybrush:

Is this trait scummy or not? I personally believe it is, but I really need to hear what experienced players think of it.

@seth:

Do you 100% deny that you have acted scummy?

I might end up withdrawing my vote and voting for you, seth, but I'll wait for that.

[Akira]

I believe I'll keep my vote on theperson, but if one vote is missing to lynch seth, I'd change my vote. I personally don't like the idea of letting scum act first.

@theperson: You haven't done any scumhunting since you replaced zauper. You left his vote on 2k3, stating that it's "between 2k3 and seth". Now, in your last post, you write the following:
"

(zauper) said he saw 0 evidence of scumhunting in 2k3 when 2k3 was clearly trying.

"

I really need to know what you think about 2k3 right now. Is your suspicion of him different than zauper's? Is that why you don't agree with zauper yet left his vote as it was?

I'll do a read on everyone sooner or later.

[Akira]

I believe I'll keep my vote on theperson, but if one vote is missing to lynch seth, I'd change my vote. I personally don't like the idea of letting scum act first.

Do you think that seth is scum?

I believe so, because I don't think a townie would insist so much on the "I'm town" thing after hearing people say that it's useless and counter-productive. I'll wait for theperson's response and decide what to do with my vote.

[Akira]

Akira; do you think that Zauper/theperson and Valk/Seth could be scumbuddies?

No, I personally don't consider that a very good possibility.

In the Valk & zauper period, I found this in zauper's posts:

Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.

Something a scum (newbie in his case) would never do to his buddy. He makes town start concentrating in him more often, which isn't good.

Valk hasn't paid much attention to zauper, writing only this regarding him.

(...) it seemed odd for Zauper to start a discussion with no one.

Again, very minor accusations. I don't strongly believe these were faked between scumbuddies.

In the seth & theperson period, the idea is even weaker. seth acts towards theperson in the same way he acts with everyone else and even votes for him. While theperson provides some good reasons to suspect seth. Let's face it: they're newbies, and voting for your own scumbuddy is a tactic which I believe only experienced scums would use, if their buddy doesn't have many votes, whereas theperson was L-2.

In conclusion, even though I have given the impression to believe that they could be potential scumbuddies, I actually don't consider it at all.

@everyone: I might be inactive for the rest of today and most of tomorrow. Just an overnight stay at a friend's house.

V/LA - 1/2 days

[Akira]

Thanks for reminding me about the deadline, I totally forgot it's in 2 days.

Anyway, there isn't any plan behind it. Yes, I suspect both theperson

and

seth, but I don't suspect them together. I simply have to make up my mind and choose between the two. If seth is lynched and he is scum, then I won't suspect theperson anymore and vice versa.
Considering that to get theperson lynched, 2k3 would have to revote him (which I don't see him doing), omnino would have to vote him (good possibility), and I would have to vote him, it's not much of a good idea.

My case on theperson has been significantly toned down by seth's arrival, but I decided to keep my vote for a bit. But now I guess there isn't any need for that anymore.

seth has done little to no scumhunting, and his vote has made me start to agree with Michel that theperson is looking like an easy mislynch for the scums.
If theperson was scum, he would have almost definitely voted after providing those good reasons to suspect seth.

So I'll

unvote

and VOTE: seth.

[Akira]

Okay I'm back. My V/LA ended up lasting much more than planned, so sorry about that.

I must say that I didn't expect that NK either. If seth hadn't been lynched, it would have made us even more suspicious of seth, because he was Michel's top suspect. But seth was lynched, so this is most likely a deep WIFOM situation. Michel's second suspect was 2k3, and unlike most people, he didn't suspect theperson much at all.
So, if we do not consider even the slightest form of WIFOM, then 2k3 becomes the top lynch and theperson the least probable. But if instead we do consider WIFOM, then it's the other way around.The 3rd possibility could be that this is an attempt to make us concentrate on these two players while forgetting who might actually be the real scumpair.
In conclusion this NK is pretty bad for us, because it leaves us with these 3 very different possibilities.

I also can't believe seth acted so scummy. He really dug his own grave by being so stubborn.

@everyone:

Who did you expect to be night-killed? I guess you don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable with it, I just thought it was a good way to get a read on people.

I'm doing my reread now on everyone, so expect a long dossier in my next post.

[Akira]

@Aurorus: I guess you're right, didn't think about that.

Time for my re-read on everyone. I'll be using a scale where 0 means neutral, green numbers (from 1 to 10) mean townie-ness and red numbers mean scumminess.

2k3 -

During the Aurorus versus 2k3 confrontation, I was pretty unsure who to suspect, if one of the two was scum. I found myself leaning towards 2k3 (as a suspect), but then I remembered the Asperger's syndrome and how Aurorus is an experienced player. Right now I'm not sure what to think of him because of the WIFOM situation between him and theperson. If he is scum, then I kinda understand his NK. He doesn't look like someone who would delve into extremely deep WIFOMs, but at the same time he doesn't look like someone who would do the most obvious thing.

2 scum

Aurorus -

Aurorus has been hard to judge. He does a lot of good scumhunting and contributes to the discussion a lot, yet the Michel NK is something I see him doing more than others. I see him using the kill to drive attention to 2k3 and theperson while saving himself. But it's only a gut instinct. I'm not sure what to think here so for now I'll keep it at

0 neutral

. But here are some questions for you: During the final part of Day 1, your second suspect was theperson. Now that seth has turned out as town, is your top suspect now theperson? Or has this mislynch messed up your read on him? Also, what's your read on Guybrush?

omnino -

Let me start by saying that your response to theperson's meta suspicion is worthy of being on the wiki's quote page. Anyway, although LoakaMossi seemed suspicious to me, he still only posted twice, so I can't base my judgement on you with his posts as much as I can with your posts. You're giving me the town vibe, simply because you're patient with your questions and you give good reasons to suspect people. That includes your Michel read, even though it didn't turn out as expected. Also, if you are scum (and, again, we don't consider Wifom), then it doesn't make that much sense to NK someone with good enough reasons to be lynched. But WIFOM is something I think you would use, given your experience, so I'll keep my town-tell on you low just in case.

2 town

I've decided to wait a bit for the other reads.

Also, what's up with the following set-up:

1 Mafia Goon
1 Mafia Roleblocker
7 Vanilla Townies

With no power roles, what's the point of there being a roleblocker?

[Akira]

Oh wait, now I get it... Never mind...

[Akira]

Also, what's your read on Guybrush?

He stated that he has a strong town-read on me on three occasions during this day only.

1

) Do you really think something has changed since 12:46 pm, or are you just not paying attention and filling your time?

Another thing I didn't like - your previous analysis of 3 players is 50% based on a night choice.

Why I personally don't analyze night choices that much:

During day - you KNOW who did what. If you want to do any action, you have to stand behind your nick. Analyzing is easier.
During night - you have no idea who did what. Scum can do anything without being connected to their nicks and personalities.
-So at least during day, I can judge whether person X did action Y because of noobiness or because of being scum.
-During night I only have the final information. You could have exp people, you could have dumb people -> too many unknown variables.

And why would it be convenient for scum to make 50% of a case based on night choices:

1. You don't directly accuse and are less likely to engage in discussion
2. But still appear to scumhunt

2

) So could you explain to me why are you giving that much importance to night choices?
Not to mention that there are

2 scums

, so any assumptions you made about "2003 would or wouldn't do this", or "omnino wouldn't go after Michel" are pretty much useless since 1 scum could influence the other to do things his way.

3

) Wouldn't you agree that if Aurorus is scum, and his partner is omnino or 2003, that Aurorus would be the one who decides whom to kill?
Leaving that part of your analysis on 2003 and omnino pretty useless?

1

) I apologize. I wrote my questions regarding theperson and seth and ended up throwing that in too, without even checking if it had been already answered even once. I decided to trust my memory, which ended up being a bad idea. I added the question out of pure "curiosity", you could say.

2

) I agree with what you're saying. I just thought that there were some people who, regardless of who their scumbuddy is, would or wouldn't have gone after Michel.

3

) Yes, but that's considering that there is at least an SE in the scumpair. For all we know there could be two newbies in the scumpair, just like there could be the two SEs. Are you suggesting I should discard these ideas?

[Akira]

Welcome Hinduragi, merry reading.

@Bazz: I agree you played a great first game, I wish there was such thing as a temporary replacement...

Unluckily, I'm going to need a replacement too in 36 hours from this post's date... Same reason as BAZZoo's, stupid last minute vacations. I feel really bad for doing this, I was really enjoying the game, and I would so stay and keep playing if I could, but my vacation will last until the 30th.

But not now, I can still post for 1 day and a half starting now. Again, I deeply apologize.

Haylen, prepare a replacement for 36 hours from this post's date. I'll keep posting until then.

[Akira]

Well, let's try to make the most of my remaining time. Guybrush, do you have any retort to make from my response?

[Akira]

Hm, the first thought I got when reading 2k3's posts was "OMG he's scum!" for all the errors and distractions. But would scum even be so distracted about the rules? I mean, even if he is newbie, he still wouldn't act so superficial with the rules. I'm still suspicious of him, but I agree that we need more to start voting him.

Guybrush, when you said you found the newbie scum-team very appealing, you meant BAZZ & 2k3 right? Why do you think so? BAZZ has accused 2k3 more than once in the past. Do you believe this could actually be fake accusing to hide their partnership?

[Akira]

Well, it's time to go. Everyone, have a good game. I'll definitely follow the game once I get back.

[Akira]

Oh, darn.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Congrats to the mafia, you've played a great game.

@Everyone: What did you think about my heavy reliance throughout the game on experienced players? Was it anti-town?