Newbie #358 - Big Trouble in Little Rome (Game Over!)

[Mr. Flay]

Second Vote Count of Day One:

Jack - 2 (Dio, Battle Mage)
ElKabong - 2 (vollkan, Jack)
Dio - 1 (yakult)

Not voting - 2 (ElKabong, Tendril)

With seven alive, four votes will lynch.

[Tendril]

I suppose a bit more pressure on ElKabong to post more wouldn't hurt. Lurking like a lurky lurker.

Vote: ElKabong

[yakult]

I suppose a bit more pressure on ElKabong to post more wouldn't hurt.

Or at all. Has he been prodded?

[Jack]

lynch -1 is not a good idea for pressure.

unvote

[Jack]

In general, you don't put someone at lynch -1 unless you are ok with someone else hammering them. Because it happens, this is how newbie games end up with page lynches.

[Battle Mage]

woah!?
Scumbag at 12 o'clock.

Unvote, Vote: Tendril

I suppose a bit more pressure on ElKabong to post more wouldn't hurt. Lurking like a lurky lurker.

Vote: ElKabong

[vollkan]

I suppose a bit more pressure on ElKabong to post more wouldn't hurt. Lurking like a lurky lurker.

Vote: ElKabong

Tendril, putting someone at lynch -1 is not pressuring them to post, it is dangerous and reckless. We need to spend time in discussion; putting someone at lynch -1 just because they are lurking is either scummy or stupid.

Not only that, but earlier on you stated:

Anyway, back to finding scum....my only suspicion is on the aggression of Battle Mage, however it could be Jack playing a clevel double bluff, for now i'll hold back my vote for more discussion.

Why did you "hold back" your vote then, but you were prepared to put someone at -1 with no discussion at all? At that point, you could have put Battle Mage at -3 or Jack at -1 but you did neither. This all seems a bit inconsistent so:

FoS: Tendril

[yakult]

Tendril, putting someone at lynch -1 is not pressuring them to post, it is dangerous and reckless. We need to spend time in discussion; putting someone at lynch -1 just because they are lurking is either scummy or stupid.

Not only that, but earlier on you stated:

Anyway, back to finding scum....my only suspicion is on the aggression of Battle Mage, however it could be Jack playing a clevel double bluff, for now i'll hold back my vote for more discussion.

Why did you "hold back" your vote then, but you were prepared to put someone at -1 with no discussion at all? At that point, you could have put Battle Mage at -3 or Jack at -1 but you did neither. This all seems a bit inconsistent so:

FoS: Tendril

Agreed. Inexplicable behavior reeks of scum to me. Let's put Tendril at a healthy two.

Unvote: Dio

and

Vote: Tendril

.

[Tendril]

Apologies for that, i can see you all leaping like excited gazelles at my mistake, I can't really defend it other than I was purely doing it for teh reasons I said.

[vollkan]

Apologies for that, i can see you all leaping like excited gazelles at my mistake, I can't really defend it other than I was purely doing it for teh reasons I said.

That's your explanation?!? Your vote created a risk that we could potentially lose a town. Plus, you voted on the assumption ElKabong was lurking, by reading the thread and not posting; hence, why didn't you just say something like "ElKabong please post something so we know you aren't lurking" rather than putting him at -1?

Additionally, you have avoided explaining the inconsistency I pointed out above which, might I add, entirely undermines your whole "putting pressure" excuse. I don't want to vote for you yet, since that would put you at -1 which I don't want to do, since it is perfectly possible you did just make a stupid error (though your contradictory behaviour suggests otherwise).

I want to know how your excuse makes sense in light of the contradiction.

[Tendril]

Its not an excuse, its a mistake, thats why im in a newbie game, so I can learn these things.

[yakult]

Its not an excuse, its a mistake, thats why im in a newbie game, so I can learn these things.

I'm not sure that this excuse has much merit. Couldn't any scum claim this about anything? I know that's somewhat WIFOM, but I feel like you're going to have to explain your reasoning better, even if it was faulty.

[vollkan]

Its not an excuse, its a mistake, thats why I'm in a newbie game, so I can learn these things.

Again, I don't think that is valid at all. You didn't vote to put Jack at -1 because you thought it would be better to:

hold back my vote for more discussion

And yet then you go and knowingly vote to put somebody at -1. The fact that you did not vote for Jack makes me highly suspicious since your defense of "mistake" doesn't hold any weight in light of that.

As I said, I don't want to start a lynch by voting for you. So, please explain why you chose not to vote Jack to -1 to avoid rushing a lynch but chose to vote ElKabong to -1, knowing that you then ran the risk of having somebody lynched.

[Mr. Flay]

kabenon007 replaces ElKabong, effective immediately.

[kabenon007]

What's going down? Alright, so I'm gonna do a quick read and post comments as soon as possible... catch some scum!

[kabenon007]

oh dear, two votes already? I'll have to make up ground that my predecessor lost.

[kabenon007]

okay, so here are my thoughts...
first off, as to the two votes against me, (left from ElKabong, curse him) and the threat of a quick lynch by the mafia, I would say that is highly unlikely. Everyone here knows that if two people suddenly change their votes from someone and place them on somebody else in order to quick lynch, we can obviously say that they are mafia. And no townie would want a quick lynch. We townies are more thoughtful. We think things through.


As for who I feel is scum, I need a little more time to gather evidence, but will post quickly.

[kabenon007]

okay: analysis...
I don't know too much at this point, thankfully I got in here during the opening rounds of this bout. About the only thing I have for you guys is an

FOS: Dio, because I thought his vote for Jack was massively OMGUS. Oh, and I believe you meant neurotic, not erotic, Dio.

Also, Battle Mage strikes me as suspiciously defensive toward Jack. I'm not sure what this means, it could mean that he is just a defensive guy, he could be scum, he could have some... vengeful thoughts toward Jack, ala their last game together. Or maybe Jack wronged BM in a past life. Who knows?

[kabenon007]

tendril, most of us are newbies, we all are here to learn something. But that doesn't mean you haven't played mafia before...

[Dio]

[q]Oh, and I believe you meant neurotic, not erotic, Dio.[/q]

No I clearly meant erotic. Jack turns me on, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[kabenon007]

awkward...

[Jack]

I'm not inclined to jump all over someone for what could be a newbie mistake.

fos:yakult

not sure I liked the tone of your accusation of tendril. Tendril

did

explain his reasoning, it was to put more pressure on elKabong. He could be scum pushing for speedlynch or mistaken townie, I'm not going to assume either just yet. One thing though, generally whenever a newbie makes a newbie mistake there is at least one scum that jumps all over them for it.

[Tendril]

unvote

Welcome to the game Kabenon

[vollkan]

I'm not inclined to jump all over someone for what could be a newbie mistake.

fos:yakult not sure I liked the tone of your accusation of tendril. Tendril did explain his reasoning, it was to put more pressure on elKabong. He could be scum pushing for speedlynch or mistaken townie, I'm not going to assume either just yet. One thing though, generally whenever a newbie makes a newbie mistake there is at least one scum that jumps all over them for it.

As I said earlier, his defence seemed dodgy but it could have been a genuine mistake, the contradiction just made it a little more suspicious but, even so, the possibility of it being a genuine mistake was still high.

[Tendril]

I will try to explain what I was thinking (or not thinking as the case was).

It was really just a case of another vote to pressure him into speaking, i thought if he was suddenly one off a lynch he'd need to speak to save himself, I know (now) that it really just puts him into a position where he can be bumped off quickly.

I'm, not sure I can explain it very much more than that.