Newbie 1040 ~ Murder in Newbville! ~ Game Over

[Lindisfarne]

This game has more experienced players than newbies. This shall be interesting.

Random questions, for everyone:
- What is your favorite role to play in mafia and why?
- Is meta-gaming based on a player's past actions a solid tactic to you? Why or why not?
- Which role would you prefer: SK or Mason; and why?

[Lindisfarne]

Chronos: There are nine players on the list.

silverbullet: why do you hate RQS? Do you not find it more enlightening than RVS?

@both: why the votes on Equinox?

Equinox: You did not answer my questions.

[Lindisfarne]

I have my own personal reservations towards the whole L-1 role claim business, but it's largely situational.

1. EST. I may go a day without posting at times. Other times I sit here refresh over and over for awhile. It depends on my work schedule. Someone made a formula for the fun of it in one of my games, that the longer the game lasts, the longer my posts get. Admittedly, I have a tendency to marathon write at times.
2. Yes. I have a decent amount of experience. 4-5 newbie games and a mini somewhere. I also played a good deal of real life mafia, and I played on a mafia facebook group. This is my first game on ms in close to a year.
3. Situational. If one scum has died, and candidate A is someone who just replaced into the game, I would push for candidate A. Higher chance that they replaced into an anti town role with no backup. They would have a better than average chance of being scum in that situation (thinking egocentrically of course). However, It would also depend on candidate b, and what they have lied about. The game is largely situation, no cut or dry answer on this one.
4. I would WANT to say logic trumps the gut, since that's how I roll. I do know, that things don't always pan out that way. Some people just play a damn good game. And if you have some idiot towns people (in one newbie game I saw, THREE people claimed doc. That's just silly) they can over shadow scumminess from others.

[Lindisfarne]

Chronos:

If I was scum, at L-1 in a newbie game when no one had claimed: I would claim Cop. Best situation? No one counters, people back off because of it, and I'm likely to live another day. Worst situation? Someone counterclaims, and now my partner knows who to kill at night. It's situational, yes. But its risky for town to WANT people to claim. It opens up doors that could really hurt town.

Now, if I was a townie at L-1, and claim cop - great. I probably wont be lynched. I, however, will die that night. Naturally, I would have died in the day if I didn't claim, but the point here is: The benefit doesn't outweigh the possible problems that could arise for town.

This is, as I said, situational. But it's something I don't think should be taken as automatic at L-1.

[Lindisfarne]

Eq: They are forum type, but the one I was in had 40 some people, so it was VERY active.

It was a fun game though. I was a mason, and ended up revealing that early on. I said I would reveal all of my members the next day, naturally scum kept me alive that night. So I ratted off all 6 of us. In a game that big, 6 guaranteed townies was a big benefit for town. Scum had to spend a long time trying to kill all of us off, giving our REAL power roles several days to work their magic. It was a worthwhile gambit that helped town big time by the end.

It was fun, but I'm not THAT keen on having so many players. Hard to keep track of things.

[Lindisfarne]

I had two goals behind starting RQS

Actually, I started it.

thinking townies analyze your play with the claim in effect and decides you aren't the cop and lynches you anyway

Lets solve this one. @everyone: would you lynch a guy who was at L-1, claimed cop and had no counterclaim?
...................
I'll go ahead and answer what most people would say: They would back off some, and ask more questions, but it depends on the situation. Most EVERYTHING in the game depends on the situation. hmm let's see:

It's situational, yes.

As I said, it's situational. I do agree with some of your points chronos, but what my driving point is that it should not be a RULE.

@Mod:

I notice you do things a bit...differently from how I've played other games. When you do a vote count, could you put the number of votes by the name as well, please? We're only on page two, but it's a bit unnerving there's so many votes flying around already. Call me paranoid, but I prefer slow games.

[Lindisfarne]

Thank you Kitoari, I know I'm a pain :p

[Lindisfarne]

First thing I would do is ask who they investigated and WHY. Let's say a player is very weak; bad logic, OMGUS's etc. In a case like that, I would be more likely to believe some shoddy investigations.

What you are doing is crafting a situation where most people would be more hesitant to believe a cop claim. Notice, I said a situation. Contrariwise, I could just as easily pose a situation where most people would be more likely to believe it, even if it's a possible scum claim. Fact is, it's (As I've stressed several times already, and you are now proving) SITUATIONAL.

[Lindisfarne]

If you were a Doc and Night 1 you save someone (assuming mafia don't no kill). Do you claim?

C. It's all situational. A Doc is kind of a funky role, personally I don't find it anywhere NEAR as useful as a cop. A Cop can claim when they have one Verdict on someone, or wait until it gets closer to the end: Either play is decent and will help town. A Doc claiming is another story.

[Lindisfarne]

wanted to point out: Equinox is now at L-2.

[Lindisfarne]

@ DNA, Chronos, and Silverbullet:

We've been in an odd mix of RVS and RQS this game, and yet a person having 33% of the votes on him on page three is a bit odd. Why are you keeping your votes on Equinox?

I'm enjoying the game theory discussion, but I did not join a game to wax theoretic with others.

[Lindisfarne]

Who is Davidparker?

[Lindisfarne]

AzBlue, why the HELL do you talk like that? It's so...disjointed.

[Lindisfarne]

Silver have you not read anything she posted? It's like a pseudo haiku. I looked at her past games, and that is how she universally posts everything. It's not very easy to follow.

[Lindisfarne]

Equinox

Gah. My apologies! I forgot that you posted questions before I did.

That was in regards to you saying why you started the RQS. However:

I'd like to continue from Lindisfarne's questions and ask a few of my own

You directly referenced the fact that I did ask first, in the very post in which you asked your questions. Now, you seem to be, from what little we have to go on in this game, a pretty thorough player. This is a pretty odd oversight on your part. Not necessarily scummy, but it irks me still.

The mike situation is funky. Let's take a look here:

mike, why no vote?

No one strikes me as possible scum yet

Do you believe a vote is only to lynch someone?

you vote for people for one of two reasons:

a) You think they are bad (scum)
b) To see how they react from it

And then he adds:

Still if you want me to vote for the sake of it then fair enough, off to random.org we go

VOTE: Lindisfarne

So mike saw no reason to vote early on. He gave his logic behind it (See: his two reasons). However in the same post he does a random vote "for the sake of it".

Why did you feel pressured to place a random vote?

^at this point I am going to skip over an important mike post, and focus on the conversation flow at hand, I will get back to it though.

Was happy to comply though if people wanted it for whatever reason (if mister random had fallen on anyone with 2+ votes already I'd have had another go).

So, mike used a random name generator. However, he stated if it landed on someone with 3 votes, he would have redone it. This goes against the concept of being truly "Random", which is what he was trying to attain. However, he says:

3 votes on someeone in RVS is too many.

He stated this in post 61, before he mentioned that he would use the RNG again if it came up with a name that had 3 votes on it. The two trains of thought connect (using a RNG again if a person has more than 3 votes, and that 3 votes on someone in RVS is too many). It shows he is cautious. However, Both scum and townspeople can be cautious. It just shows there is no contradiction there. Moving on.

I personally don't see how giving a nothing reason would help to give a read on me so didn't see the point in putting a vote on for the sake of it. It can be needed to get the game moving but we had our RQS so I deemed it unecessary.

I'll try to decipher this (this was part of the post I mentioned above as being oddly worded. something about it isn't easily approachable to me, maybe im just having a brain fart:

Essentially mike says giving a "nothing reason" behind a vote wouldn't help town get a read off of it (i.e. help us better judge his alignment via his vote), so he doesn't see the point. He then says since we had an RQS, that was enough to get the game moving, and random votes, once again are unnecessary (bear in mind, he random voted anyways).

Scummy post here. First, you say that you didn't see the point in putting a vote on for the sake of it, then went on to do that.

That, is true. He did say he saw no point, and then voted.

Second, you said you were just random voting, then said that you would have ignore the RNG result if it resulted in you voting someone with more than one vote, which means you were actually not random voting.

Now, although I have proven that that is TRUE, you are using it to pad an argument. Look up at my first point, about equinox. I COULD say that is a lie, he has lied this game. And if you look in depth, he falsified events as I have shown, and I even showed how it is illogical for him to chalk it off as a mistake. *See, I did add that up there for a good reason* HOWEVER, I don't view it as necessarily scummy. Although your remark about the randomality is TRUE, his logic behind WHY is consistent. It just doesn't come off as massively scummy in any way. This point is just trying to pad your case.

Now, my question to you is: Why are you trying to appease people?

If you mean by putting a random vote in then why not ? Didn't even think of it at the time as the game was moving on anyway but didn't have any objections to it.

Waaaaait.

I personally don't see how giving a nothing reason would help to give a read on me so didn't see the point in putting a vote on for the sake of it. It can be needed to get the game moving but we had our RQS so I deemed it unecessary.

You didn't "see a point" and viewed it "unnecessary" and yet you had no objections to it? Hmmm...

my totally meaningless reason was the Random Number Generator. Lets take post 4 as an example - LC votes Equinox but doesn't supply a reason - why has he done it ? Well my guess is he's picked someone at random to get the game moving. Just like me except I'm more open about it.

This gives you more info on me than the meaningless crap that the scum have probably posted here.

What the fuck, didn't he say:

I personally don't see how giving a nothing reason would help to give a read on me

You're going back on your own points dood.

FOS: Mike

I'm going to look deeper into Mr. DNA's posts. something seemed off when I was looking through the mike convo. Depending on what I find I may upgrade that FOS to a vote.

[Lindisfarne]

Mr. DNA

While there was less here than I initially thought, I find one thing quite silly:
We have been playing this game for going on

5

days.
We are now on page

4

You have made a grand total of

4 friggin posts

Now, in that time, you have:

VOTE: Equinox

Then

VOTE: a2rudeboy

you then say:

mikemike is looking a little jumpy right now

and

It always perks my suspicions when someone blatantly says come bandwagon with me.

Tell me DNA, how many games have you played where that has happened? Show me here, on MS, a link to where someone has said that, causing you to be suspicious? Granted, your suspicions behind that are not unfounded, to be honest. However It sets off a flag when a newbie starts proclaiming past experience to help guide their judgment. Especially when past proven experience is pretty minimal.

Now naturally, I am being kind of nitpicky here. And I will point out your comments are staying consistent:

I'm more concerned with getting lurkers talking at the moment.

And for now VOTE: a2rudeboy to provide some posting incentive.

That said, you are getting a bit jumpy yourself. Two votes, claiming one guy is acting suspicious and calling another jumpy is pointing a lot of fingers in only 4 posts. You said it yourself here:

are you tossing out suspicion to see if it will stick

Now, as a side note: how is mike (since he was whom you were referencing in that section) "tossing out suspicion?" Also, you tried to vote rude boy while you were still voted on equinox. Did you just happen to forget that? You need to unvote to revote.

AZBLUE

You also need to UNVOTE to REVOTE.

[Lindisfarne]

@ALL: I stand corrected. In this game unvoting is NOT necessary

Wow, newbie games have changed since I use to play!

[Lindisfarne]

It's actually a streamlined version of the back and forth spread over 4 pages. It's better than reading 4 pages over again.

Also, read my sig, plox.

[Lindisfarne]

"Too Long; Didn't Read"

[Lindisfarne]

@Equinox

What bothers me personally about DNA is how often he voted or spread scumminess in his first few posts. That's either someone very vote happy, paranoid, or scummy. However, at this point, I don't see much else to point in either direction.

Mike

Pretty much every single thing you've said has been to go on about the RNG thing which isn't exactly helping the town's cause.

As I pointed out, the RNG element is by and far his weakest point on you, but I would hardly say its the only thing that is being pursued against you. Personally, what gets me is how one moment you say your random vote wont tell town anything so you view it as pointless, and then later you say how it

This gives you more info on me than the meaningless crap that the scum have probably posted here.

That is contradictory, and is a red flag.

Reaper

Why in the HELL did you claim your role in your first post? I can see no reason as to why you would do that.

FOS: Reaper

[Lindisfarne]

a superior being lies in his place.

This made me lol heartily.

Reaper's post amazes me. I just had to analyze it.

I am only doing this as a favor.

well gee, I think we have someone who is gonna take the game seriously!

They

[Lind: Newbie games]

are frustrating because you end up expecting people to be smarter than they actually are. Which, of course, they aren't.

So if newbie players aren't overly intelligent, that means they are not good players, correct? (I'm going to assume im right in your logic, unless you want to say stupid players are good). Therefore you, being someone obviously more intelligent than other newbie players, are playing with players not as skilled as you. Good to know, I'll touch back on this one.

So, even though I'm not an SE or an IC, I have more playing and modding experience than most of the people in here, and my advice for now is, play smart, try not to piss me off, and I really am a very nice guy.

Did he ignore the fact there are more IC/SEs in this game than newbies? Did he ignore all the posts debating game theory? Regardless, he continues the above thought train in thinking he is more experienced/smarter than us.

Now, can we agree a more experienced/smarter player is a better player? If so, we have already established that Mr. Reaper finds him self more experienced and smarter than us, following that logic says he also views himself as a better player. Moving on.

By the way, my entire playstyle revolves closely around being a complete jerk, when the time calls for it. Welcome to the goddamn jungle, dood.

Not to mention, I just got my role PM from Kito, and I'm a vanilla townie.

I can go with a newbie making a mistake like pulling that, but bear in mind, we are dealing with someone far above our level of reasoning and logic. This is a Mafia Expert, afterall!

Let's lynch some scumbags, I'll catch up and read the thread sooner or later, and if you're scum, please just admit it now so we can lynch you, and save us all some time.

First, notice the "catch up and read later" bit. So he posted this, even his spiel about newbies letting him down and not being good players and his super experience, without even reading the damn game. Holy shit this guy assumes more than me!

MY view:

Reaper is pompous and more than slightly full of himself. Also, so far he is not taking the game seriously. At all.

The vanilla claim right now, is virtually a no-tell, it can swing either way with me, but his personality I doubt will lead to being overly helpful in this game.

[Lindisfarne]

Done. Not bad, I have a good number of Town reads. One of them isn't this guy, so
VOTE: mikemike778

Care to, I dunno....explain?

[Lindisfarne]

Well if we are doing one of those deals:

EQ: is the only one I am leaning towards town on. He is in depth, knowledgeable, and is acting like a voice of reason, so to speak. The one thing that scares the devil out of me, however, is the way he is playing now, reminds me

exactly

as how I play as scum (check newbie 681, especially the discussion afterwards.) However, that doesn't make him scummy to me, just a bit scary.

Mike: He contradicted himself, and said two different things, in regards to why he random voted. Contradicting is not good, period. Normally it means scum are getting the excuses mixed up. However, besides that flub, which COULD just be from a frustrated townie (LC was hounding him), there is nothing glaringly scummy...just some questionable behaviour.

LC: Pretty solid player, a bit aggressive. You remind me of a more newbish Kairyuu (he's one of my favorite people to play against). Only thing that tees me off is how you kept chasing after mike's whole RNG-not-being-an-RNG deal. Yes, you caught that it wasn't really random, but that isn't inherently scummy. Besides that odd padding on your argument, your a solid neutral.

DNA: threw votes all over the damn place early on. I really don't know what you were trying to accomplish, just asking the mod to prod the inactive works better than voting.

Reaper: Null, although I have enough that his next few posts can swing his direction widely with me. I can take his actions as very town or very scum, depending on how he plays in his next few posts. If he posts.

Everyone else: Neutral-ish. Really nothing that swings my radar either way.

[Lindisfarne]

Getting to the main reason I am posting this: Your top two scum picks are me and silverbullet, thus you are voting MrDNA who is neutral.

This. I haven't even caught that, good analyzing.

[Lindisfarne]

Reaper, you remind me of me, on a bad day.

The fact you referred to my post as TL;DR when yours is the same made me lol.

[Lindisfarne]

Why does it matter if I am someone who only votes when I'm 100% sure, or someone who doesn't see anything excessively scummy at the moment? Either way, I have yet to vote and I won't vote until I am ready, thank you very much.

[Lindisfarne]

AzBlueM asked a fair question. Why did you refuse to respond?

Look at my wiki, I do not disclose my playstyle (like many people like to do for some stupid reason), for a reason.

This will end up in a playstyle debate, derailing the game more. I see no reason to toss votes all over the place for relatively minor things, especially when, after most minor things, I still get a fairly town-ish/null read off of them. Mike is the exception, because his actions were relatively suspect, primarily how he had a blatant inconsistency with his reasoning behind RNG-ing. However, my view is that scum would try to defend something glaringly obvious pointed out at them, and defend it pretty hard. He did not defend against my point over LC's, which I honestly feel was the better point (he lied. Period. He gave one thought he had on a subject, and then turned around and gave another). I was a bit taken back by how hard he defended against LC's case on him, but the fact he pretty much took my point in stride made me slightly less suspicious. Townies don't need to defend themselves to the extent scum do.

Now, what is the purpose of the Vote? To kill, and (to what is a more common extent if you compare to how often people switch votes) to apply pressure. Hence the FOS. I use it to apply pressure when needed. It serves, in my philosophy, to the pressure extent just fine. If someone continues to do things scummish, I will ask more questions. If their answers seem to fit the pathos of scum, or otherwise don't satisfy me, I will upgrade to a vote, meaning I am down with their death.

At this point, I am not convinced enough of anyone, although I do have some I see as more scummish than others.

That is an example of some of my many philosophies in the game. I hardly see how it furthers the game.

I want to hear more from reaper. I'm torn between thinking he is actually pretty clever, or that I am severely overestimating his skill.
I am also starting to think both our scum is either cautious/inactive as of late/or experienced.