Newbie 799 - Katana Village (Game Over!)

[edmund.angles]

Oops: Sorry that last comment has been exhaustively dealt with, should learn to reload before posting.

---

VOTE COUNT

(3) GreenDude - SilverFang, Mevorra, Belili

(1) Lab Mafia - edmund.angles
(1) SilverFang - GreenDude
(1) NO LYNCH - wickedswami

Not Voting: Lab Mafia, WeepingWind, nureins


With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch
Deadline: July 3, 2009 12:01 pm PST

[GreenDude]

I am at loss of words. Suddenly the conversation picks up after I start the conversation and then I close the case. But no, certain people pick up the conversation and with just about no evidence suddenly are voting on me and using their charisma to vote me. Like I said: I started the case on wickedswami so to find out whether he's mafia or not. Right now, I'm convinced he isn't. End of case.

@nureins: Could you PLEASE help me out here??

@mevorra: I was laughing because it was rather ridiculous.

I think everyone is a bit suspicious about wickedswami. So I suggest this:
we put pressure on him. And IF we lynch him, then we find out whether he's mafia or not. If he is... great! If not, he was directing all our mafia finding energy on him, which wasn't helping us, and we will beable to get a move on finding the mafia. AND, if he was townie and we win, he wins too. Seems like a win win situation for me.

I posted that to see whether wickedswami is scum or not. I don't think he is! But if he turns out scum them everyone will assume me scum too.






Btw, something is not right here, I have a feeling that 2 mafia are putting suspiciouns on me together so others follow their lead.

[GreenDude]

Current Votes:

GreenDude: SilverFang, Mevorra, Belili
Silver: GreenDude
Labmafia: Edmund.Angles
No lynch: Wickedswami

Not Voting: WeepingWind, Labmafia, Nureins

[Belili]

There's a difference between "laying low" and being inactive.

Green was suggesting we lynch the most inactive player because they contribute less etc.

That's not rational, especially in the first 48 hours or so of the game. Mafia and townies alike can forget about the game, have plans, be busy, etc. You're taking a random swipe with that strategy.

Laying low on the other hand could be posting less (but being active), posting less helpful things, etc.

[GreenDude]

I've been reading through the thread and there's one little hilarious detail I want to mention. Belili was called belini for a very long time because of my mistake! LOL!!

[GreenDude]

WOW!!! Belili... I DID

NOT

suggest we lynch the most inactive player!!! I've told you this before!

[GreenDude]

This is not going well for me. I've made a lot of mistakes.

[WeepingWind]

Btw, something is not right here, I have a feeling that 2 mafia are putting suspiciouns on me together so others follow their lead.

Who do you propose?

[Mevorra]

GreenDude is right when he says he never said he wanted to lynch the inactives, so if this delusion would cease, please?


Also, @GreenDude:

Why would you say my theory was ridiculous? I cannot see anything that would make it impossible, and I think it is a totally valid point, even though I'm not foolish enough to think it to be the only and correct theory.
Also, thinking that the mafia team would be "out for you" seems strange to me. You've posted a lot, and with posting a lot comes a lot of opportunities for misunderstandings and suspicions.


@WeepingWind:
I'm sure if GreenDude would have any suspicions as to who the scum are, he would tell us about it. Well unless he's mafia, of course, but I shouldn't have to point that out.

[WeepingWind]

Though it is very possible for both mafia to have voted for GreenDude, it would probably not be in their best interests to have him lynched. If he flipped town, a person who seems to be considered very suspicious would be gone, and attention would turn to the main advocates of the lynch, possibly the mafia.

[Belili]

WOW!!! Belili... I DID

NOT

suggest we lynch the most inactive player!!! I've told you this before!

Sorry dude! I saw "If you agree with lynching the most inactive players" and assumed you meant "If you agree with

ME

".

[GreenDude]

@mevorra: I didn't mean it wasn't possible, I meant that it was ridiculous because... because... I don't know. I never thought about it. I just thought it not possible, but there is the whole other side of your theory which you didn't mention. And if you would please mention it so the balance of ying and yang is mantained??

[Tenchi]

I will be doing prods and replacements tomorrow.

[SilverFang]

Sorry all but due to some personal and work related issues that popped up today. I'm going to be too busy to continue playing for the foreseeable future. I apologize and hope you all have fun.

[wickedswami]

just a thought. what if the afk ones are the scum, and we're all just looking for something that isn't here, constantly attacking eachother?

silverfang: sorry to hear you say that. Maybe we'll see you again in another game.

[Mevorra]

@mevorra: I didn't mean it wasn't possible, I meant that it was ridiculous because... because... I don't know. I never thought about it. I just thought it not possible, but there is the whole other side of your theory which you didn't mention. And if you would please mention it so the balance of ying and yang is mantained??

I'm not quite getting you here. Another side to my theory? Sorry, not sure what you're talking about.

[edmund.angles]

I'd like to releave some confusion, I was the one who first mentioned lynching inactives.

My strategy, don't vote randomly and lynch the least contributing person if nothing scummy happens, In the beginning I'll vote on slight suspicions and gradually the bar is raised for voting someone.

I'm saying lynch the least contributing person if there's no better candidate at the end of the day, to translate this into 'Lynch all inactives' is another gross simplification on Belili's part, which coupled with his simplified version of who the mafia might be makes him suspicious to me.

This coupled Belili's misquotation of green, his hipocracy on the inactivity/"laying low" issue, his campaining greens band wagon the minute he entered the game and yes, his inactivity for a long stretch, has now gotten me more suspicious of him than any inactive player.

unvote vote Belili

[Belili]

@ edmund. Interesting, you defend green wholeheartedly. You are one of only two people to both not vote for green and not to be voted by green. And now you're deflecting to the most vocal pro-lynch-green player in the game.

Although no one agrees with me, I'm still going to promote my theory that we should think a step ahead. Let me explain again.

I would recommend you to do the maths again before proposing lynches so happily. First, in the case Green is mafia, and in the case 3 people voting him are townies, there would be 5 more players around. How do you end up with only 2 suspects

1 + 3 + 2 = 9...

umm such maths...

No need to be condescending. My math came from the assumption that mafia will work together and not try to lynch each other. Given voting patterns and statements in this thread, there are two people the most likely could be tied to Green IF he is mafia and three that most likely could be mafia IF he is a townie.

It's not perfect, but it's something to consider.

And given edmund's actions... I think it's a possible combo to consider Green/edmund.

Just look at this.

I'm saying lynch the least contributing person if there's no better candidate at the end of the day, to translate this into 'Lynch all inactives' is another gross simplification on Belili's part

I never once said/thought YOU said "lynch all inactives" or anything of the sort. In fact, I never read that post until now (sorry).

But it's interesting that you would consider the statements of green and the statements of yourself as one in the same. As if you were a team.

which coupled with his simplified version of who the mafia might be makes him suspicious to me.

Fair enough on this point, but why is complex necessarily better than simple? That doesn't make much sense. It may mean I'm wrong, but it's a rational and productive suggestion.

This coupled Belili's misquotation of green

Which is a symptom of... skimming. Not scumming. If I were mafia, how would it benefit me to misquote someone?

his hipocracy on the inactivity/"laying low" issue

Hypocrisy? I don't see how that word applies. Inconsistent perhaps? But I'm a law student... I parse words. And laying low is a lot different from being inactive. If I don't post for 3 days, I am inactive. If I post 1 time per day and it's not very productive, I am laying low. There is a difference. And given your posts I think you're smart enough to understand that difference, yet for some reason are refusing to acknowledge it.

his campaining greens band wagon the minute he entered the game

He was my second vote....

his inactivity for a long stretch

See, I don't think you're irrational, yet you're making an irrational argument. Silverfang has been inactive to the point he's being replaced. Should we lynch him? Of course not - at least not for that reason - it doesn't make sense.

[Belili]

I know I'm not supposed to edit - but to clarify my last post - those quotes are from edmund. I'm not sure what I did wrong on the quoting front =/

[WeepingWind]

Silverfang has been inactive to the point he's being replaced.

Didn't he just say he was withdrawing from the game because of work issues? That's different from being replaced due to inactivity.

[edmund.angles]

I never once said/thought YOU said "lynch all inactives" or anything of the sort. In fact, I never read that post until now (sorry).

I never claimed you said that about me, I'm saying that you didn't bother to trace back where talk of lynching the inactives came from. Same problem as the misquotation, I get the feeling you were reading through looking for something to pounce at and not the truth.

If I were mafia, how would it benefit me to misquote someone?

By being able to make people look more suspicious to the rest of the town.

Hypocrisy? I don't see how that word applies. Inconsistent perhaps? But I'm a law student... I parse words. And laying low is a lot different from being inactive. If I don't post for 3 days, I am inactive. If I post 1 time per day and it's not very productive, I am laying low. There is a difference. And given your posts I think you're smart enough to understand that difference, yet for some reason are refusing to acknowledge it.

Perhaps you are right, inconsistent is the correct word. Ok, you were inconsistent. Yes, there's difference between inactivity and "laying low", but inactivity is certainly a subset of "laying low", your statement remains inconsistent.

He was my second vote....

He was your first vote after your inactivity stretch, the first being completely random.


With regard to the simplifying, it's good for the mafia because the truth might be complex so simplification derails discussion and makes town not consider all possibilities.

With regard to the inactivity, I have many more reasons to suspect you than just inactivity with Silverfang I just have inactivity.

Finally there's the scumbuddy speculation Green/me. Well, I really don't find green that suspicious. Sure he was a bit lynch-happy at some point, but that's about it.
Generally, I think the scumbuddy line of thought can be dangerous because there are so many different reasons to attack/distance/agree with somebody and scum can use many tactics to confuse town. It would be ok, if we had one confirmed scum (by lynch) and then looked back to check for his partner, but right now there are just too many possibilities.

[nureins]

Before more serious analysis, Ill give some answers to page 5. We (some of us, indeed, but most) are contributing a lot, lets continue this way.

@nureins: Could you PLEASE help me out here??

Why do you think I will help you out here?

I will analyze some of your play later, since I had one important thing that I let uncommented. Later will be time to re-read the whole game and decide whom to vote and push for.

[quoted="belili"]Given voting patterns and statements in this thread, there are two people the most likely could be tied to Green IF he is mafia
[/quote]

Even with the extreme assumption that mafia partners did not vote each other (which is not very realistic because mafia can vote each other in some circumstances), your maths continue the wrong way. You would remain having GREEN/LAB, GREEN/EDMUND, GREEN/WEEPING and GREEN/ME (4, and not 2).

But it's interesting that you would consider the statements of green and the statements of yourself as one in the same. As if you were a team.

He was clarifying a confusion (a confusion that YOU started). You had the possibility of saying:

a) hey, that is correct, i am sorry. I eliminate that from my "case" on green. The rest of my case remains, and it is that and that....

or you had the possibility of saying what you said. Curiously, you use your own confusion to accuse Edmund of something. Either you are very tunnelvisioned or this is scummy. More analysis later with the rest of players.

He was my second vote....

Your first vote was basically fun. You could have said us:

"yes, I found green scummy quite quickly and blabla"

or you could have done what you did, which is avoiding to answer edmund...


Ok. I come to analyze some players. Welcome to the real game !!

[wickedswami]

I gotta say I really have NO idea anymore who could be what. Mafia is doing a good job and we're gonna have to do our best if we want to win this game.
Everyone seems to be accusing everyone and I really can't tell which one of you is correct.

I'll read through every single post in the thread again and will post some more contributing stuff later because I know saying I have "no idea" isn't really helpful to the town.

[Tenchi]

Effective after this post

pikapizza

replaces

Lab Mafia

.

[nureins]

Currently, Greendude has 3 votes. I will start by analyzing them, to see which of the reasons and attackers are consistent. Then, I will add some of my own comments on Green.

1. SILVERFANG. Silver voted Green in the random stage, basically. After that, he added some reasons that I analyze now.

a) In posts 89 and 90, he accuses Green of "being the most active player".
Green accused-commented that mevorra was not participating much. Indeed, mevorra partially accepted this providing a timezone explanation. Silverfang accuses Green of trying to appear as townie by participating a lot.

That is a very poor accusation to my eyes. It is a "too town to be town" accusation. Greendude is participating a lot. That, without any other signal, is a positive issue. If Silverfang wants to show Greendude is mafia by participating a lot, he should show how this is "fake" and not pro-town, and second, how he is scummy in all these participations.

b) He buys Mevorra´s initial case on Green.

I will comment Mevorra´s case later. Buying other person case without commenting the weak or the strong points is not a good signal, in any case.

MEVORRA

Mevorra was the second person voting Green, after Green´s proposal to lynch wicked.

a) The first reason exposed was that post of Green. Supposedly, Mevorra found it "phoney". He didnt add anything else. Moreover, it is interesting to note that this was simply his first response after the petition of Edmund to be controversial.

We cannot see where it was phoney if Mevorra does not clarify. Moreover, Mevorra himself comes to say that Green was maybe promotion discussion and then softens this reason.

b) Mevorra promotes new reasons immediately. Now, it is the "Green makes illogical comments on wicked" reason.

I probably understand that Green was making illogical accusations. But clearly, that is not very correlated to the fact that Green is scum. It fits very well with the "i want this game moving even without thinking" type of reasoning. Illogical, quick, and obviously, not very helpful. But scummy? not necessarily.

c) Post 85 comes with new comments. There is no other reason added in post 85, just the description of a possible scumpair. I found post 85 especially odd. Mevorra comes with a theory of scumpairs including Green and Wicked.

As Mevorra had to explain how "illogical implies scummy", he came with a theory where Green just wanted to distance from Wicked. If this is true, illogical is scummy only if wicked is scum, and hence, the reason b) is not very strong, as it has only a chance to be significative. In any case, I find this theory very odd. I would find strange that newbie scum would propose to lynch their mates so openly, making all the attention to focus on either his mate (wicked) or him (by making such aggressive proposal).

3. BELILI

Belili puts Greendude at L-2 precisely when Greendude was seriously bandwagonning Wicked. I found that rather strange, since Belili was suspecting Green for being eager to lynch initially.

a) First reason was eagerness. Curiously, I think Belili himself provides in his first post a very plausible explanation of Greendude eagerness. It could be just his playstyle and that he was eager about everything. Participating, questioning, voting, lynching.

b) Also, he includes the "irrationality" reason. He has not explained however how that irrationality could be faked and scummy.

c) He quickly comes into analyzing scumpairs and the "benefits" of a greendude lynch. Curiously, he is precisely doing what he accused Green of. Promoting intensely a lynch because it is a "win win" situation. Everything is good in lynching green because we can find scum later both if green was scum or townie.

This reasoning is very bad. It can be applied to every player that we bandwagon. So basically, we need to vote the scummiest player.

d) Another reason comes from a confusion. Already explained. However, i found curious, as I said, that he uses that to accuse Edmund, being his own fault to confound terms.


---

Now, my own observation on Green. I find his "case" on Wicked curious, especially all that part in which he is "testing" wicked. Let me summarize.

Post 64. Green makes a case on Wicked. Supposedly, Green´s case has a hole.
Post 69. Green finds Wicked townie, even if Wicked fell in his hole-trap. That is rather strange. If someone is setting a trap, how likely is that the person finds the other person townie after falling in the trap?
Post 77. Greendude explains the trap to me. Admits that he does not know what this means. Why do you set up a trap if you have no interpretation of the behavior you are checking?

Summarizing, Green has been a very controversial player. His contribution is correct, and I like that part. He has not flied low at any moment, and was seriously participating from the beginning, even with aggressive and risky choices. I have some doubts on him, but I think most of them can be explained by his eagerness-townieness.

Please green, answer to my doubts on you. And if you plan to do it quickly, think twice.