Newbie 1001 - Game Over

[Pizzaplate]

@ Boberz, post #306. And insulting people is going to make them take their vote off of you?

Note I never said who the quotes were from, why do you think they were directed at you? I put them right around the "appeal to majority" thing, because if you'll take the time to look at "appeal to majority", that's basically its philosophy.

again, @post 306, how am I wrong? Before that post, tell me one thing you did game-relevant other than attack memnon and push bandwagons? Viewing you in ISO, that's pretty much all I could come up with.

[Pizzaplate]

@Kwonderboy, double posting, triple posting is fine.

But going over 5 posts or more will probably get people mad at you. Please condense your posts into one or two large posts this time.

[Equinox]

But going over 5 posts or more will probably get people mad at you. Please condense your posts into one or two large posts this time.

KoreanWonderBoy has stated more than once in this game that the multiple posts are due to computer issues. Skipping posts?

[Pizzaplate]

One more thing(s) as I got to read over kwonder's conveyor belt of opinions:
He states that boberz reads himself as scum. I'm having great difficulty finding anything that suggests this at all, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone playing mafia would even read himself scum. So to this comment, I'd like for you to tell me the exact post where he said that.
@post 313, I'm pretty sure we all agreed that it was just a meaningless side comment and people are reading way too deeply into this. Though it can get humorous, it's derailing your scum hunting.

There's something I learned about in psychology called the confirmation bias. You might want to look it up. It's clearly exhibited here when you post thoughts the moment they come up.
You see, you knew your vote was on boberz, and so everything he did looked scummy to you because otherwise, why would you have voted him in the first place?

And now... Hold... Everything.

I just read something rather interesting. You say MiTC was innocent. He had good arguements, etc.
Okay. Then how does this make sense?

ISO post 25: " Definitely suspicious of MiTC. Especially that he's not trying to defend his lack of activity. I want to see how he responds when he finally posts again." - Kwonder

ISO post 29: "About MiTC and shotty, I was trying to read shotty and give him a fresh card, but I finally realized (that I'm really stupid? ) that shotty would have the same role as MiTC so if MiTC was suspicious, shotty should be as well. So since the deadline's coming up, I vote shotty.
Vote: Shotty (or whoever is replacing him/her)" - Kwonder, second half

At this point, I'm going to point out: MiTC was replaced. Therefore, he could not have provided any new material.

Furthermore, you place a series of attacks on boberz. You say he throws up a red flag for you. Okay, I can understand that.
But right away, in your very next post, you unvote him because "This is because I think MiTC was innocent. He had several good arguments, and he didn't seem like he was panicking in his last few posts. I genuinely think his abscense is unrelated to flaking. (on that note, what is flaking? Is it just avoiding questions?"

What?

Unvote

Vote: Kwonderboy

What do you know,I did manage to find a couple more interesting tidbits before I went to sleep tonight.

[Equinox]

But I'm getting a new laptop in a month, this game (will it?) might take as long as that so yea.

Games typically last a couple of months on this site.

Next, boberz states that bandwagons can often be pro-town. I'm still not too clear about this one. Genuinely. Bandwagons are where one person votes a certain person (let's call him A) and then several others vote A as well. However, is it only a bandwagon if the others don't provide sufficient reasoning? Or is it bandwagoning as long as they are voting the same person? And is the only good thing about bandwagoning for the town that it causes discussion? Because couldn't the mafia take advantage of bandwagons and promote discussion towards the supposed guilitness of the bandwagonee?

A bandwagon is simply a set of votes on the same person.

Yes, the mafia could take advantage of the bandwagon and heap accusations. That happens rather often. However, that doesn't stop town from analyzing the bandwagon the following day and examining votes and reasoning.

There are other benefits to bandwagoning. For instance, if we've had multiple bandwagons (like today), we can watch players' behaviors toward those bandwagons.

(on that note, what is flaking? Is it just avoiding questions?)

When a player drops out of a game for whatever reason, they're flaking.

---

Next I viewed boberz in iso. (iso = isolation, correct?) One thing that grabbed my attention that seemingly passed by everyone else's radar was the fact that he read himself as scum while going over everything. It wasn't so suspicious until boberz analyzed other things quite well. If he's such a good analyzer... Quite suspicious, indeed.

How is this suspicious, exactly? That boberz has posted analytical content should have no ties to how he read his own slot.

Lastly (for now, sorry I didn't get to go over everyone) is skn. Even though I will go over you in more detail tomorrow, for now, I'm beginning to doubt my thoughts. I found that you took similar actions to what I would have done, but what was scary was when I put myself into mafia shoes. (which I had never done until now.. stupid me) I found myself almost doing identical things to you, whereas when I was thinking townie, I just had similar thoughts. This makes me quite suspicious, but not enough to vote you. I still sympathize with the newb aspect, but nonetheless, you and I are still players in a game.

This is where I get lost. You pin Pizzaplate down as town for thinking similarly to you, yet you're not giving skn27 the same benefit when she has done the same thing. Why? Can you also explain what you mean by putting yourself 'in mafia shoes' and why you felt you should have done this earlier?

He states that boberz reads himself as scum. I'm having great difficulty finding anything that suggests this at all, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone playing mafia would even read himself scum. So to this comment, I'd like for you to tell me the exact post where he said that.

boberz said that as soon as he replaced in. Skipping posts?

---

I was going to wait until later tonight before diving into Mafia, but I don't feel like studying right now... so I'll go ahead and look at those cases on boberz and Memnon. Regarding the question about my second suspect, I'll hold off my response to that until I've caught up.

I am still happy with my vote, by the way.

[CallMeLiam]

Vote Count

skn27

- 2 - Banana Stickers, , Substrike22,

Substrike22

- 1 - skn27

Memnon

- 2 - Ragnarokio, boberz

KoreanWonderboy

- 3 - Equinox, Memnon, Pizzaplate

Not Voting

- 1 - KoreanWonderboy

Five votes lynches, Deadline is 9am

Friday the 10th of September

GMT. A countdown is here

[Substrike22]

One more thing(s) as I got to read over kwonder's conveyor belt of opinions:
He states that boberz reads himself as scum. I'm having great difficulty finding anything that suggests this at all, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone playing mafia would even read himself scum. So to this comment, I'd like for you to tell me the exact post where he said that.
@post 313, I'm pretty sure we all agreed that it was just a meaningless side comment and people are reading way too deeply into this. Though it can get humorous, it's derailing your scum hunting.

There's something I learned about in psychology called the confirmation bias. You might want to look it up. It's clearly exhibited here when you post thoughts the moment they come up.
You see, you knew your vote was on boberz, and so everything he did looked scummy to you because otherwise, why would you have voted him in the first place?

And now... Hold... Everything.

I just read something rather interesting. You say MiTC was innocent. He had good arguements, etc.
Okay. Then how does this make sense?

ISO post 25: " Definitely suspicious of MiTC. Especially that he's not trying to defend his lack of activity. I want to see how he responds when he finally posts again." - Kwonder

ISO post 29: "About MiTC and shotty, I was trying to read shotty and give him a fresh card, but I finally realized (that I'm really stupid? ) that shotty would have the same role as MiTC so if MiTC was suspicious, shotty should be as well. So since the deadline's coming up, I vote shotty.
Vote: Shotty (or whoever is replacing him/her)" - Kwonder, second half

At this point, I'm going to point out: MiTC was replaced. Therefore, he could not have provided any new material.

Furthermore, you place a series of attacks on boberz. You say he throws up a red flag for you. Okay, I can understand that.
But right away, in your very next post, you unvote him because "This is because I think MiTC was innocent. He had several good arguments, and he didn't seem like he was panicking in his last few posts. I genuinely think his abscense is unrelated to flaking. (on that note, what is flaking? Is it just avoiding questions?"

What?

Unvote

Vote: Kwonderboy

What do you know,I did manage to find a couple more interesting tidbits before I went to sleep tonight.

UNVOTE: skn27
VOTE: kwb

[Substrike22]

Also I motion that page 13 hereby be renamed to the KoreanWonderboy's page.

[Equinox]

Posting to say that I forgot I had a different Mafia commitment that's of higher priority, so I'll need to attend to that first. Post and case analysis is coming tomorrow or Thursday.

[CallMeLiam]

Vote Count

skn27

- 1 - Banana Stickers

Substrike22

- 1 - skn27

Memnon

- 2 - Ragnarokio, boberz

KoreanWonderboy

- 4 - Equinox, Memnon, Pizzaplate, Substrike22

Not Voting

- 1 - KoreanWonderboy

Five votes lynches, Deadline is 9am

Friday the 10th of September

GMT. A countdown is here

[boberz]

Equinox, you made an assumption about what I wanted to do then voted me for it. Assumption wrong.

Incorrect. I am not voting you.

Sorry that was Pizza (reread fail, have now done it again) the rest of my post was fine I think.

[boberz]

So, in other words, you're accusing yourself of being scum?

No there are several differences:

-Firstly we are near deadline and I want a lynch.
-Secondly I find other people scummy (but need a lynch)
-Thirdly if you dissapeared I would not refuse to play until your replacement turned up.

Loads, unfortunately, is not a good method for stimulating discussion. You have to be more specific. And I asked the question because the game was stagnating and I didn't know what to do about it.

So it wasnt even an attempt to scumhunt?

So are you suggesting that asking people questions is anti-town, or at the very least, unhelpful to town?

If there is no real reason to be asking them and you gain nothing from them then yes, a massive fallacy in the game is people asking questions and clogging up the thread because it might help later. Nonesense.

What text? That was exactly the problem. You can't dissect something that isn't there.

Rubbish answer and that is how I know you are scum.

And we have to ask, did he become inactive because he was under pressure?

THis is also not a scumtell.

Also what was your real reasoning behind substrike???

I barely saw any real reasons for a long time, was your second mislynch target.

[skn27]

Lastly (for now, sorry I didn't get to go over everyone) is skn. Even though I will go over you in more detail tomorrow, for now, I'm beginning to doubt my thoughts. I found that you took similar actions to what I would have done, but what was scary was when I put myself into mafia shoes. (which I had never done until now.. stupid me) I found myself almost doing identical things to you, whereas when I was thinking townie, I just had similar thoughts. This makes me quite suspicious, but not enough to vote you. I still sympathize with the newb aspect, but nonetheless, you and I are still players in a game.

This is where I get lost. You pin Pizzaplate down as town for thinking similarly to you, yet you're not giving skn27 the same benefit when she has done the same thing. Why? Can you also explain what you mean by putting yourself 'in mafia shoes' and why you felt you should have done this earlier?

I'm also confused about this. Is it because people are seeing you as scum since you were sympathizing with me, so you thought that to seem less scummy you should start backing away from me? This seems pretty scummy. Here is an example of people seeing you as scum for "buddying up":

Secondly, while it may be a good idea to find possible town players to "eliminate" from one's list of suspects, doing so on the basis that they agree with you has issues. For instance, it's a common scum tactic to "buddy up" to other players.

I found that you took similar actions to what I would have done, but what was scary was when I put myself into mafia shoes. I found myself almost doing identical things to you, whereas when I was thinking townie, I just had similar thoughts.

Could you give an example of "what you would have done?" and by that do you mean what you would have done if you were scum?

[skn27]

@Substrike: you STILL haven't answered my questions and it's been awhile...two real days ago.

Now that it doesn't matter cause I got the reaction, I was reaction hunting. Votes jumping around early isn't an unusual thing unless you put someone at L-1 or hammer without reasoning.

You put me at L-2 for no reason and when I asked you to explain your reason for voting for me, you didn't.
What did you find while reaction hunting? That I voted for you after giving a reason for it?

Also, where has Banana Stickers gone?

[Memnon]

-Firstly we are near deadline and I want a lynch.
-Secondly I find other people scummy (but need a lynch)
-Thirdly if you dissapeared I would not refuse to play until your replacement turned up.

-Firstly: Again, you are making the assumption that I was pushing really hard for a lynch, which is untrue.
-Secondly: So just because we need a lynch you are going to ignore anyone else and tunnel on me?
-Thirdly: When did I "refuse to play"?

So it wasnt even an attempt to scumhunt?

No it wasn't. It was an attempt to find another way to scumhunt.

If there is no real reason to be asking them and you gain nothing from them then yes, a massive fallacy in the game is people asking questions and clogging up the thread because it might help later. Nonesense.

We clearly have a massive disagreement in game theory.

THis is also not a scumtell.

See, you're considering everything as "this is a scumtell, and this is a null tell, and never the twain shall meet." This is so untrue. If the motives behind something that would otherwise be a null tell are suspect, then the tell is not just null.

I barely saw any real reasons for a long time, was your second mislynch target.

I had few reasons because it was early in the game, and I didn't have much on anyone. He was my second suspect.

[boberz]

-Firstly: Again, you are making the assumption that I was pushing really hard for a lynch, which is untrue.
-Secondly: So just because we need a lynch you are going to ignore anyone else and tunnel on me?
-Thirdly: When did I "refuse to play"?

1/ I did not make the assumption I read the thread. But even pushing the wagon hard is enough for me.
2/ I am not ignoring anyone else. I am pushing you.
3/

Not until ManInTrenchcoat's replacement shows up and confirms/allays my suspicions of him.

THis was after a period of lurking and before a strange period where you noted people's points and observed the game.

No it wasn't. It was an attempt to find another way to scumhunt.

That sounds like an attempt to scumhunt to me. How would this way help us find scum then.

We clearly have a massive disagreement in game theory.

Don't wimp out I want to know why you are not helping, don't drag it into theory. Atleast explain how the questions might help us catch scum if you really beleive they may be valuable.

See, you're considering everything as "this is a scumtell, and this is a null tell, and never the twain shall meet." This is so untrue. If the motives behind something that would otherwise be a null tell are suspect, then the tell is not just null.

No I am not but nobody including you has explained why something is scummy in context, so I see no reason to go into a deep contextual reason why things are not scummy I will just refute at the same level as the accusation.

I had few reasons because it was early in the game, and I didn't have much on anyone. He was my second suspect

We will let the people decide on this one but I se that as a very abd answer. Essentially it is ok in your book to sling mud and create an enviroment is scummy with minimal reasoning just because they are second suspect. That is really dodgy.

[Substrike22]

Skn I was talking about my initial vote for KWB, not your vote. Your vote was a boredom vote, which is why I moved it. Thought that was made clear. At this time I think it's pretty apparent. Also if KWB flips scum your chainsaw defense of him doesn't look too good for you.

[skn27]

Yea, Ragna has a good point that it's a good idea to keep people away from L-2 in case the mafia decide to take advantage and hammer, or something. Unless you've got a good reason it's generally a bad idea to put someone at L-2, a REALLY bad idea if you're putting them at L-1 or Hammering.

Yea, I'm getting bored at the lack of activity too.

Unvote, Vote: Skn27

(Putting me at L-2)

Hmm..contradiction?

Also, could you explain to me how I was making a chainsaw defense of KWB because I don't think I really see it. I mean you didn't even vote for him when I attacked you so why would I feel the need to protect him? He had been attacked before you attacked him a second time and before I voted for you. Why would I start protecting him after you (specifically) made a small attack on him? I know this is pretty much a WIFOM statement, but I'm just saying that you don't really have a legitimate reason for being suspicious of me. So in conclusion, I don't believe that I had made a chainsaw defense of KWB.

Adding to my reason for voting for you: you dodged a lot of my questions. Such as:

Do you have a reason for voting for me or KWB, because you're asking me to make a case, but what's your case on me and KWB? You haven't made a case against either of us and you're asking me to make a case against somebody. Are you trying to make me make a case so that you wouldn't have to "yet"?

1/ I did not make the assumption I read the thread. But even pushing the wagon hard is enough for me.

You're the one pushing wagons? (unless I'm reading this statement wrong?) I.e.:

Also we need more wagons. Nice big juicy wagons.

[boberz]

Skn, I like wagons, but you need to go and read the rest of the conversation in context to work out what we are talking about there. I assumed you had been following.

[Substrike22]

Not a contradiction if the game's died and you're trying to get it back up, hence the "generally." As in, "not always."

You did chainsaw. I wasn't the first one to point it out. Whether or not you think you did doesn't really matter, because you did. I attacked him and you attacked me. = chainsaw. And you're right in that it's a WIFOM argument so it's hard to give an answer for that, isn't it? That's like saying "I know this is a rhetorical question with two possible answers, but go ahead and choose one randomly." It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I honestly have a hard time processing the grammar and train of thoughts on your posts, not to be rude, but that's why I'm not answering all of your questions. Beyond that, you ask questions that to some extent I've already answered. I support Pizza's case on KWB and I've made various plays against you based on your chainsaw defense and vagueness in earlier posts. I'm glad you finally picked a target, even if it's a bad one. It makes you look less scummy as you're actually attempting to construct a case on someone. KWB looks more scummy to me than you, and I think getting his information will help me figure out where you're sitting in alignment.

[Ragnarokio]

I think KW's play has been hollow and contradictory, as if he were worrying more about what he said at the time above anything else. This seems like it would be a scum mentality, and i would be fine lynching him for it.

Sorry that i'm not posting much, i am actually very busy lately, i have a lot of things going on both on the internet and in real life, so i'm putting more emphasis on keeping up with this game and reading people than on posting and attacking people (which would take more energy). If you find i'm not doing enough then i'll be more than happy to be replaced, or hopefully i'll find some more time soon.

If you want me to answer specific questions please ask them, as i don't think i'll be able to comment on everything i see.

[skn27]

You did chainsaw. I wasn't the first one to point it out.

I know you weren't the first to point it out, but shotty didn't stay long enough to elaborate and I don't believe Pizza saw it (is that true or am I making it up, Pizza? Because I don't think you responded). Now can

you

give an example of chainsaw defending?

Ok so all he was focussed on untill page 9 was pizza and bannana, but as soon as XS attacked KWB just a bit you could tell he got a bit tense, then whenever XS voted him and attacked KWB a little bit again he countered with a OMGUS and a weak chainsaw deffense. I mean he has been OMGUSing this whole game, but it's the little hint of a weak chainsaw that gets me

I don't think I was

attacking

pizza and banana, but answering what they were throwing at me. Anyways, although I don't agree with what shotty said (doesn't really even matter), even he said the chainsaw was weak. So what can you give to make that attack stronger?

I honestly have a hard time processing the grammar and train of thoughts on your posts, not to be rude, but that's why I'm not answering all of your questions. Beyond that, you ask questions that to some extent I've already answered. I support Pizza's case on KWB and I've made various plays against you based on your chainsaw defense and vagueness in earlier posts. I'm glad you finally picked a target, even if it's a bad one.

Okay pertaining to my train of thought, I agree and I've already apologized for that and I'm apologizing for it again. But, you could have asked me to clarify or something instead of completely ignoring or skipping over my questions because that makes you seem very suspicious.

Why is my target (you) a bad one? This was probably a bad way to tell me that you're not the person the town is looking for because it really just makes you seem more scummy.

[Substrike22]

The examples have already been given, I'm not going to go digging through text to find it again, sorry. Go back to where they said you chainsawed, because you did. I essentially said something about KWB and you immediately attacked me for it. That's a chainsaw, and your example.

Again I'm not skipping or ignoring, I literally did not see questions in your line of reasoning. I thought you were asking them rhetorically because I had already addressed most of them.

[skn27]

Okay, whatever. I don't want to waste anymore time if you're going to say that.

[KoreanWonderBoy]

:l My past post didn't happen apparently.
I sincerely apologize I will be V/LA from right now until Thursday morning. I'll keep up with information, but I won't be able to post. (home renovation issues)
At such an important time too X(

V/LA until Thursday morning