I was town, as usual.
Maokun and Gricky for scum!!
I was town. Just had to replace out to find a job. And I've found a job, not a great one, but one that pays me in money. So hopefully I won't have to replace out of any more games ever.
I messaged the mod, but it's important to let the players know too, I've requested replacement. Real life is really getting in the way. I have yet to find a job on top of the new stress of finding a way to pay bills and still try and help out my local game shop. I was looking forward to this game from a mechanics perspective and I've already held myself to a high standard of not replacing out of games, but I feel like my hand is forced here. I really need to focus all my attention elsewhere. Have fun everyone. Sorry I couldn't stay any longer. Hopefully I'll be back on the site sometime soon, once I've found a job and all.
First, I'd like to say that I appreciate those who think I was scum MVP.
Second, I agree that RR played a stellar game and deserves the scum MVP award. I honestly thought that he would be killed the day of his replacement. The fact that we got a mislynch and kept him around for one more night phase was crucial to the game lasting as long as it did.
As for my own play, I didn't realize that I had so few posts in the game. My life issues were a burden on my gameplay, I just didn't realize the extent. Still, I feel like when I made a post, it was large and inclusive enough to make up for the small amount of posts. I will admit that in the last day, I pulled a planned lurk until I felt like commenting on the Cyouni wagon was safe enough. Not only did I do this to wait for Voxx's comments, but I was planning the angle I was going to push on the Cy wagon. I didn't want to come on too strong, as that might give me away. I also didn't want to limp onto the wagon, as it might raise some questions. I pushed on conviction, which I thought I had enough of myself. Void didn't see things my way and gut overpowered Voxx. Point is, I tried taking the most careful steps during the last day do get the mislynch without any major slip ups.
As for who should be the scum MVP, I don't see any reason why it can't be co-mvp. RR played amazingly and deserves it, but I also feel like I put in my work too, as much as I could anyway.
Regardless of awards, the town played really well the whole game. I had a lot of fun playing and hope this game has set a tone for league games to come. Good job to everyone involved and good game to everyone playing.
Double-hat's off to Void. Even though you pushed on Cy at the end, you didn't let it cloud your judgement into being a stubborn bulldog at the end. I know you have struggled in the past, but you are really honing your skills as of late. You're incessant bulldogging questions as town is one thing I have grown to fear as a scum. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the kind words, Gricky. (Not so sure about the bulldogging though :p)
After Cyouni cleared Voxx for me it became PoE between you and Cyouni and Cyouni's early actions on Day 7 got me all screwed up. If it wasn't for Voxx and his 1-Shot Role Block I more than likely would have stuck with Cyouni, but even then I couldn't be 100% sure with a possible No Lynch at deadline.
That's what makes me feel like it was a very circumstantial win for the town. If Cyan doesn't give a shot to Cyouni, scum win. If Voxx uses his RB any other day, scum (probably) win. There were too many town mechanics left over at the end to ruin me. Plus, we let Cyan just hand out Vig shots, in hopes that the shots would kill townies (they did) or that we would get them (I tried :[). I never thought that letting Cyan live so long to hand out one last vig shot would be my downfall. Hell, if Cyan had vig-gifted to anyone BUT Cyouni, the scum might have pulled out a win.
Very circumstantial, somewhat frustrating, very very good game. I had fun, that's what it comes down to for me.
So in the end, that whole thing about not knowing if you got targeted or not was correct. And I was the one who turned it around to focus on RobRoy. Sigh.
There was no way that AE had targeted me. The way he put whatever people were calling a breadcrumb in thread made me sure of that fact. It also made me sure that AE was planning on targeting me. I didn't account for the fact that any unsure phrasing by me would sick the hounds on me. I honestly don't even know what mistake I made. I felt so unsure that I had even made a mistake that it made my defense that much more believable. I just thought the town was grasping at straws, which is probably what happened, but they happened to grasp at the right straws without knowing it.
Funny story about the AE NK. Me and RR were debating who the doc was and had been eliminating suspects. We settled on shooting WG that night, thinking it would net us the Doc. RR had some suspicions about AE though, seeing as how Voxx had confirmed him. We talk about it and I say "Ok, well, I'ma go send in the kill on WG." I get to the message, say "eff it, I'll go with AE instead" and boom. I went back into the mafia QT and told RR "Hey, I lied, I shot AE". Turned out pretty good.
By the way, you do have a Strongman kill remaining, right?
Actually, I'm a perma-strongman. Mafia Ninja. I go through all forms of protections and preventions. Fairly handy role to have at endgame. Like I said, the only think I was worried about was the kill Cy had at the end.
I thought about being all manipulative and twisted and talking up and down about how the town just screwed itself out of a win, but that's just not me.
GG guys. I tried. I thought I had it locked up there at the end when Void made the push against Cyouni for me. Cy was the only choice for a mislynch after he revealed he had a shot.
Voxx's gut saved this game for the town. He knew that every shred of evidence said lynch Cy, but chose to ignore the facts. I was really banking of Voxx to read the overwhelming evidence and put all his stock in it. Apparently Voxx his a sixth sense about these things. Kinda sucks being lynched and nobody ever presented anything against me.
Oh well. It was a hard fought battle and I think that each of you who made it to the end played an exceptional game. My hat's off to you. For being the last scum left, I had some very difficult choices to make as far as who to keep alive for the endgame and how to play the night.
Double-hat's off to Void. Even though you pushed on Cy at the end, you didn't let it cloud your judgement into being a stubborn bulldog at the end. I know you have struggled in the past, but you are really honing your skills as of late. You're incessant bulldogging questions as town is one thing I have grown to fear as a scum. Keep up the good work.
I don't know if I'll get in trouble for ending the game and admitting all of this before GanDan has a chance to do that himself, but seeing as how I've already been lynched I really don't think it should be a problem. It's been a long game. Fun at times, frustrating at others, and sometimes both. Thanks GanDan, I thought you were a damn good mod and the setup was well balanced, just as the name implied.
I've been incredibly busy with job interviews and games of magic and driving, a lot. It might not be tomorrow, but I'll catch up soon. I do know one thing: Unvote.
The problem I have with Cyouni right now is his continued use of the vig shot as a defense. It's not. It doesn't make Cyouni town, it just means Cyan gave him a shot. It's very possible that Cyan gave the shot to scum-Cyouni. So the plan for what happens if we do mislynch today becomes bollocks. Cyouni also brought up the strongman kill, which is further proof that if we mislynch the plan get's thrown out the window. The biggest problem is Cyouni not really caring who gets lynched at this point, whether it be Void or myself. The vigshot plan isn't something reliable and the town has the chance to win the game with a correct lynch today. Why risk it? Why risk making an incorrect choice here?
As for his claim, I see no reason to believe it couldn't be a gambit. It's generally accepted in mafia that a miller claim should be done at the beginning of a game to make the person more trustworthy. Scum can and have falseclaimed Miller because all it takes is the early claim and some smooth talking and smooth gameplay to prevent being killed. It's not something I would expect an inexperienced player to pull off, but a scum with experience wouldn't have a problem with it. Cyouni's not a noob, and from what I've seen from his other games, he's perfectly capable of this level of play. That makes his claim neutral in my book.
Romney. He needs the support in these supposed "dark times". Also, he apparently only wrote a victory speech, that's what he told the media. So you know he needs a friend. He didn't even consider a loss.
A. Your frustration at non-playing players is fine, we are all frustrated that they aren't playing. However, the solution to that problem is and has always been asking the mod to find a replacement. Voting for a player that's not in the game is a scum strategy. Not only does it let you vote and attack someone who doesn't fight back, but it makes you look like you are providing content to the thread without actually providing anything. That's why I'm calling you scummy.
D. This is the kind of thinking that made me call A Bear obvtown. While I'm inclined to believe you hear, the fact is that you made this comment after I had declared mass=paranoia to be a towntell. There's no way of knowing if your faking it or not. BTW, the jokey "Who's there?" bit at the beginning of this makes me less inclined to believe it.
E. Like I've said before, while I have a problem with your research, it's not what makes you scum to me. Its that you have been hiding behind the research in order to justify you not actually voting anyone in the game. You were using that research to post non-content things and appear useful to the town, your posts were all for appearances. I thought it looked scummy, I disproved the legitimacy of the research and I proceeded to explain my thought process and place my vote. I fail to see how that's predatory in any way, I made a case and made my vote. You OMGUS'd me, proceeded to skew my attack to be more about the research than anything else and have, at the time of this reading, suggested that I'm partnered with Lampdwellr just because we are both voting you, which has kept the terrible "noob-bashing" argument afloat.
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember. Secondly, you state later on that you believe Lamp and me to be in league, that we are both scum. Have you done any analysis on Lamp to show that he's had scummy actions on his own, or are you just tying him to me because we both voted you?
G) Once again, you are putting to much stock into how much stock I'm putting in the research, if that makes sense. The research argument was only a support to show that his justification for his non-content posts was flawed. So, my arguments were as such - Kank is posting non-content, which is scummy, and he says he can justify it, which is scummy too, because there's zero justification for posting non-content that I can think of. Regardless, his justification (the research) is flawed, so justified or not, his non-content is scummy! I said earlier, in an argument to Kank, that you can have a motive for someones crime, but you also need side evidence. The research argument is my side evidence for the larger "Kank is a no-content posting noob scum" argument I have been trying to make.
H) So apparently Lamp was on Kank too. However, twisting that into a "gang-up" seems like you are twisting the argument quite a bit. I have no fear of being coupled with Lamp, it's just that there's nothing to couple. The only thing we share is that we both voted Kank, for different reasons too. And I wasn't the one who brought ganging-up up. I can't remember who was attacking me at the time, I think it was PG, but I believe he mentioned that I was ganging up on Kank, which is why I brought it up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I) So, players I'd like to hear from soon, because hey look, they've disappeared! Seppel, Reya, Raging Levine, Captain Eddie, Voxx, Macius and I think that's it. Interesting story, that's 3 men and 3 women. Could it be our scumteam? Doubtful, but worth thinking about. Chances are good that there's at least one scum there.
A) I never actually voted for an absent player (My RVS fake-vote on Iso doesn’t count). Please check the record: I THREATENED to vote for an absent player, a la “Last one in the pool is a rotten egg!” I, more than anything, wanted to bring attention to the players that hadn’t started playing yet. Hmmm…I wonder if anyone else ever points out players that aren’t playing? Hmmm…
First, my argument cares very little whether you did or didn't vote them, the fact that you threatened to vote the last player in is enough. Second, I see what you did there and I'll get to it later. Point is, you threatening to vote players that are lurking or OOG or generally not playing the game is a showy way of allowing yourself to not play the game.
D) Mass paranoia=towntell? News to me. If you said it, I certainly didn’t see it. Remind me to base all of my behavior on how you think a proper townie should act at all times.
Well, I said it when explaining why A Bear is obv town. Your condescending remarks not withstanding, I am here to help if you need it and I do have knowledge of how town and scum behave.
E) I make a casual, minor observation about what the early events were in previous games that were marked as “Normal” and that means I’m hiding behind a wall of non-content research fluff? I did it with the intent of people saying, “Oh, that’s interesting, next…”
The non-content is your vote history and refusal to add to what's actually happening in the game. Your Research is the justifications for your non-content actions and it's flawed, which is why your actions can be proven to be non-content. This argument has been confused long enough.
That seems to be what both you and LampDwellr seem to be fixated on is the fact that I shared a small sampling of day 1 results from a few past games. “Gallup Polling has determined that a townie will get lynched today.” Guess what? Gallup also said Mitt Romney was going to win the election. Is it a sure thing that we will lynch a townie today? Of course not.
Then why bring it up? You are now arguing that your own data is flawed, just as I have been arguing. Good day sir.
F) You seem to be very interested in my scumminess, and that makes it very hard for me to believe that you have completely skipped over other players that started putting the squeeze on me before you ever did. (Raging Levine is actually still trapped in RVS mode where he was voting on me because I was in the future.)
Reading through the thread, your posts jumped out at me for reasons that I've explained a million times now, and I went head-first into the wall-post pool and came out with a goldmine. I built my case and analysis and didn't really look into anything that wasn't written by you. You'll have to forgive me for not including the only other serious vote that was on you at the time. Would you rather I just /barn his vote? Probably not. I find it much better to post my own case, my own reasoning and analysis.
Also, I find it funny that people attack me for ganging up on you with Lamp and when I vehemently deny that, you attack me for NOT working with Lamp. There's no happy medium here is there?
How are we supposed to believe that you began your attacks on me before ever reading about another player that started doing that before you did, and now you even claim to not even be aware that he did.
Believe it or not, that's up to you. What you really need to focus on is how whatever you believe affects my alignment. I don't think me not including Lamp's arguments in my own says anything about my alignment whatsoever, let alone me being scummy for it, as you are trying to imply.
G) It sounds like someone is trapped in the past. How long are you going to stand on this “non-content posting” platform of yours now anyway? I can see that you’re desperately trying to hold a match up to me and see if I catch on fire. How many times are you going to try to light that same match again?
The match was, is and will continue to be lit. Your early posts contain several examples of you avoiding gameplay with OOG issues. I've proven that. The only thing that's changed since then is me calling you out on it and you OMGUSing me with that vote of yours, and then twisting arguments every which way to call me scum for attacking you.
H) Welcome to the game. Yes, you are not the first person to start investigating me. The fact that you were trying to pretend that you were operating inside of a bubble and completely ignoring the other players is what is really makes me suspicious of you. Oh, I’ve been watching LampDwellr too and he’s got my curiosity as well, but nowhere near as much as your behavior.
So I'm scum because I'm possibly tunnelvisioning on you? I'll admit, I've been slightly tunneled on you for a while, but you've grabbed my attention in a fierce way ever since you decided to OMGUS me. Still, I don't feel like I've gotten out of hand, I've been keeping an eye on PG and throwing my support for IB and A Bear. The only thing suggesting my tunnelvision is that I missed Lamp's vote on you. I wouldn't say that I'm ignoring other players, I'm very much receptive to what's going on in this game. At the time I cased you, maybe you had me a bit too distracted, but I wouldn't say that I'm "pretending" by any means. That's a smear and you know it. You may think I'm pretending to have missed something, but I'm beginning to think it's you with the tunnelvision, because you seem to be twisting history as you see fit.
I) Oh, so it’s scummy if I try to speculate guilt among the lurking/non-playing entities, but it’s completely townie behavior if you do the same thing?
Wrong. What I did and what you did are two completely different things. You threatened to vote for one of the two people who haven't checked in, and only shortly after the game began. That's scummy because you are attacking players who've yet to post, you are attacking low hanging fruit (a scum tactic), you are threatening to vote them (remember, we don't vote lurkers, we ask that they be replaced), and you are doing it all after the RVS ended, so you could have been commenting on things that were actually happening in the game.
I wasn't calling for a vote. I called out several lurkers after several days had passed. I did this in addition to playing the game at hand. I called out both the players that had yet to check in and the players that had checked in a disappeared. I also made the comment that it's highly likely that one of the 6 lurkers I called out is scum. I also have good reasoning for calling out a few individuals.
First, Seppel and Voxx are incredibly strong assets to have on the town side. They are very experienced. If they are town, I want them in this game, and since I have no reason to believe that they aren't, I'm calling the out of lurking. Second, Reya is a player that I believe would lurk as scum. I believe his meta proves this, making it a good reason to call him out.
Finally, I believe that if there is one scum in those 6 and you held a gun to my head and told me to pick the scummy one, I'd choose Reya. But by no means is that a very educated guess. Any one of those players could be scum. None of them could be scum. All of them could be scum. Fact is, we don't know till they start posting more content. While I may have implied that scum lie in that pool of lurkers, I'm not going to point a finger at any specific person because I have absolutely nothing to support that theory. I've got only one lead, the meta lead on Reya, and meta is a shaky thing to trust. Fact is, lurkers aren't meant to be voted, they're meant to be replaced.
Point is, what you did was scummy because of the way you did it. You weren't calling out lurkers. You were threatening non-active players (by non-active I mean hadn't even checked in, different from lurking) with a vote in the early stages of the game as a means to avoid in-game play. I called out the whole lot of lurkers, not with intention of vote but just to call them out, after multiple days, maybe a weeks worth of time so that there's no doubt they lurked while also focusing my attention to in game matters.
GrickyTimmick: How do you see LampDwellr’s behavior and reasoning?
I don't know. Lemme read him up real quick.
KK, back. Turns out he hasn't posted for pages, but from what I've read, his logic is sound. He called you out a while back for only quoting half his sentence and you trying to make him look bad for it. He also stayed fairly calm under that pressure, whereas the returned pressure on you didn't go so well. You said you weren't concerned by me and Lamp calling you a "baddie" and Lamp was quick to point out that he said nothing of the sort, just that he voted you. You seem to have overreacted to the pressure on you there.
Seppel, Reya, Raging Levine, Captain Eddie, Voxx, Macius and I think that's it.
Interesting story, that's 3 men and 3 women. Could it be our scumteam? Doubtful, but worth thinking about. Chances are good that there's at least one scum there.
Thank you! That is so helpful! I especially love that you're bringing up both scum as lurkers and the 3/3 split when the rookies here have been given flak for both those thoughts, often by you! Excellent.
Wonderful sarcasm. Now put it away, get out your analysis, think hard for a while, and realize that what I did and what Kank did have only one thing in common. We were both talking about players not playing the game. Aside from that, there are no similarities, because the manner with which Kank called out lurkers was incredibly scummy, as I've explained. Also, do the math. 6 lurkers in a game with 23 players, that's 26.08% of the playerbase. There are likely 5-6 scum in the game. That's 21.79% of the playerbase at least. The chances of the whole 6 lurkers being the scum team is low, but the chances of one of those lurkers being scum is very very high.
By all means, though, if your sarcasm hat is that comfy, then overlook my logic and continue to throw politically-fueled jokes around to twist my words. I assure you though, your flashy bit of sarcasm might fill you with some ego-boosting bravado, but it only serves to make you look foolish when you are wrong.
BTW, I've been up all night and am having a fairly annoying day, so if there's just a touch of 'bite me' in the tone of this post, you have my apologies.
i didn't lie
you're thinking of some other bear
there is no post i made that says i am new to mafia :U
I see, you've played mafia before just not on this site, except for one time. I called you a liar because it looked like you were saying that this is only your second game, but in your first game you told them you had five years experience. See what I'm saying?
What do you expect when I'm one of the only experienced people in this game? What do you expect when 3/4's of the players in this game are noobs?
When I'm reading the player list, I identify names that aren't familiar to me. I play a lot of games and read a lot of games and tend to know if a player has been around much at all. That being said, when I read the player list, I thought that Ferro Man, Raging Levine, Misting, Captain Eddie, LampDwellr, Kank, Tom, Macius, Bolly, A Bear, Stardust, PG and Maokun were all noobs. I recognize only some of those names and that's only because mafia isn't the only part of the forum I read. Furthermore, EtR, Reya, Kahedron, and IB are all newer players, not quite noob anymore, but still figuring out the game. Maybe Kahedron is more experienced that I'm thinking, but he plays very few games from what I've seen. That leaves Seppel, Wrath of Dog, Dork Knight, Wessel and Voxxicus as players that I know have experience playing this game.
I may have jumped to conclusions with who I assumed was a noob and for that I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.
I had to split this out over time, so let's see if Word has helped me make sense of this any:
GrickyTimmick: A) How is voting people outside the game and promising to vote the last person who checks in any incentive to play the game? I see you saying here that you did what you did to help the game in some way. How do you figure? B) What I asked was what are you looking for in everyone else that you think would make them scummy? C) Lastly, what do you think /barn means? D) Why so jumpy about that issue? E) Second, what's wrong with my "educational diatribe" about the subtypes? More specifically, how does that make me scummy? F) Finally, nice retaliation vote there. Any specific reason for it, other than the fact that I voted you first?
A) I look at people not willing to play the game and/or lurk instead as being detrimental to the game. “Last one in the pool is a rotten egg!” Whether that person would be scum, town, or other means less to me than the fact that they just aren’t playing. I have no idea what the overall mafia stats of lurkers to chance of being scum are. All I know is that I have no patience for non-participants. If you sign up to play a game, then play it dammit! B) Contradictory and/or predatory behavior. C) Jumping onto a lynch bandwagon without having any personal justification for it. D) Huh? What? Who goes there? All I know is that I can’t trust any of you. For all I know, my clan mates are all evil and are secretly plotting my demise as I type this. E) I made a small observation about past Normal games, which you weren’t content with, and then you went and blew it way out of proportion on your own. See B) above. F) LampDwellr actually voted for me before you did.
A. Your frustration at non-playing players is fine, we are all frustrated that they aren't playing. However, the solution to that problem is and has always been asking the mod to find a replacement. Voting for a player that's not in the game is a scum strategy. Not only does it let you vote and attack someone who doesn't fight back, but it makes you look like you are providing content to the thread without actually providing anything. That's why I'm calling you scummy.
B. It's good that you are looking for behaviorial patterns, but be careful. There are a lot of behaviorial patterns that town and scum can share. The differences lie in their presentation and the situations in which they are behaving. Finding the behaviorial analysis on a player is like finding the motive for a crime. It's great and all, but the motive isn't going to send them to jail, you still need evidence.
C. Actually, /barn means that you agree with whoever you are barning. When IB /barned Wessel's post about RVS being over, he was simply stating that he agrees with what Wessel said. You can /barn a vote, but not all /barns have something to do with voting.
D. This is the kind of thinking that made me call A Bear obvtown. While I'm inclined to believe you hear, the fact is that you made this comment after I had declared mass=paranoia to be a towntell. There's no way of knowing if your faking it or not. BTW, the jokey "Who's there?" bit at the beginning of this makes me less inclined to believe it.
E. Like I've said before, while I have a problem with your research, it's not what makes you scum to me. Its that you have been hiding behind the research in order to justify you not actually voting anyone in the game. You were using that research to post non-content things and appear useful to the town, your posts were all for appearances. I thought it looked scummy, I disproved the legitimacy of the research and I proceeded to explain my thought process and place my vote. I fail to see how that's predatory in any way, I made a case and made my vote. You OMGUS'd me, proceeded to skew my attack to be more about the research than anything else and have, at the time of this reading, suggested that I'm partnered with Lampdwellr just because we are both voting you, which has kept the terrible "noob-bashing" argument afloat.
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
Secondly, you state later on that you believe Lamp and me to be in league, that we are both scum. Have you done any analysis on Lamp to show that he's had scummy actions on his own, or are you just tying him to me because we both voted you?
- In Grickytimmick's post 120 I liked the way he defended InfectiousBaloth. Comparable to EtR (but the other way around), I think scum wouldn't white knight someone in this way. He's basically calling 'bull****' on everyone who voted IB based on the barn, which takes a certain bravado not often seen in scum. Though, now I think of it, I see it would have some advatages for Gricky to protect him as scum, whether IB is his buddy or town. However, what I didn't like in the same post, was his attack on Kank based on that he only looked up Normals from the past year. It seemed overdone, and coupled with his doubtful claim in post 128 that he had only seen that this was a Normal just now, I think it's very shady.
My attack on Kank isn't about his Normal information. That was part of my supportive reasoning, but the full reason that I'm voting him is he's posting a lot of non-content. He posts a lot, but it's a lot of fluff. I see Kank as posturing for the town with these votes for outside players and the statistical justification he uses for doing so. Me pointing out that his evidence was flawed was tantamount to me tearing down the statistical wall that Kank had build as a defense for his actions.
Yea. Not buying it. I think it was bad and opportunistic argumentation to go after him for researching just the Normals of the past year. I know it wasn't your sole argument, but the fact you included this makes me think you're just trying to grasp at straws.
Once again, you are putting to much stock into how much stock I'm putting in the research, if that makes sense. The research argument was only a support to show that his justification for his non-content posts was flawed. So, my arguments were as such - Kank is posting non-content, which is scummy, and he says he can justify it, which is scummy too, because there's zero justification for posting non-content that I can think of. Regardless, his justification (the research) is flawed, so justified or not, his non-content is scummy!
I said earlier, in an argument to Kank, that you can have a motive for someones crime, but you also need side evidence. The research argument is my side evidence for the larger "Kank is a no-content posting noob scum" argument I have been trying to make.
What do you expect when 3/4's of the players in this game are noobs? Eventually, at some point, 'noob smashing' is going to take place. If there were only one or two noobs and I was part of a group of people who had ganged up on those players, then your noob-smashing call would be totally justified. Not here though.
This is a very weak defence. Just because three quarters of a game would be newbies, it doesn't mean you should 'noob smash' (as PikachuGundam calls it). Furthermore, as others have already pointed out, why so over the top in your defence saying 'three quarters of the players are noobs'?
Well, first, because damn near three-quarters of this game is full of noobs, at least to me, as I've explained earlier.
Second, I didn't say I was noob-smashing, but if everyone is going to claim that any attack on a newer player is a "smash" attempt, then there's no use in actually playing this game. There are far too many new or newer players that tip-toeing around them isn't going to get us anywhere. I don't think the way I was playing was "smashing", I even attempted to thwart that argument when I initially made my argument against Kank. I've kept the same level of aggression that I would show to anyone else and I don't believe my tactics to be twisted by any means. "GRICKY SMASH" just isn't a thing, and smashing in general is a rather poor argument anyway. At some point, a noob is going to need to be questioned about something. They aren't babies, they're just new mafia players. I've even seen plenty of newer players that stand up mightily against some of the experienced players we have. I see this "noob-smashing" argument as an excuse to coddle the newer players and a hinderence on anyone who actually wants to accomplish an interrogation in this game.
Furthermore, I believe that I was the only person getting onto Kank at the time. There was no gang-up, just my own personal pressure and analysis of what I saw before me. Calling my actions 'noob smashing' is taking an extremist view of my actions.
So you acknowledge that you were attacking Kank, but you vehemently deny being part of a 'gang-up'. Why the fear of being coupled to LampDwellr? (At least, I think you're referring to him when you're talking about ganging up?)
So apparently Lamp was on Kank too. However, twisting that into a "gang-up" seems like you are twisting the argument quite a bit. I have no fear of being coupled with Lamp, it's just that there's nothing to couple. The only thing we share is that we both voted Kank, for different reasons too. And I wasn't the one who brought ganging-up up. I can't remember who was attacking me at the time, I think it was PG, but I believe he mentioned that I was ganging up on Kank, which is why I brought it up.
So, players I'd like to hear from soon, because hey look, they've disappeared!
Seppel, Reya, Raging Levine, Captain Eddie, Voxx, Macius and I think that's it.
Interesting story, that's 3 men and 3 women. Could it be our scumteam? Doubtful, but worth thinking about. Chances are good that there's at least one scum there.
Again... saw A Bear viewing this thread and again... no post...
Vote: A Bear for massive lurking.
maybe if you stopped posting massive walls of text i'd be able to post
can't you just link to the post you want or quote the part you're replying to instead of the entire freakin essay come on
one thing i've gathered is that people seem to be copying others' opinions and not making their own. stop that. it's a bad habit.
even if your opinion is similar you should write it out because you may realize something that you didn't before while typing
for example while writing this i decided that wessel is my greenest townread because his longpost was basically a cliffnotes of this game so far so i am in debt to him and also he hasn't tried to twist anything with his observations like other people are doing (everyone)
First, AB is a noob. His tells are going to be much more obvious than an experienced players. He proves it here over the frustration about walls-o-text. It's not an alignment tell at all, just helps us understand that he's completely new.
Now that it's firmly established that he's new, take a look at the bolded statements. A newer player calling out /barning as a bad habit strikes me as townie because he's preaching something that's generally a well known fact. He goes on to explain why voicing your opinion, even if it's similar to someone else's, is better play. Even though he's spouting well known things to experience mafia players, newer players may not know about these things. So not only is he showing a townie mindset by learning these things early, where scum would rather take advantage of these things, he's also preaching it, which is an incredibly protown move for a player who doesn't know any better.
Top it off with his last section, the second bolded part. He shows mass-paranoia, which is typical of a newer town player. Scum don't show paranoia because they know who they can trust, they know their partners. Noob townies aren't very willing to trust anyone and they let that be known.
At face value, I'm thinking AB is easily town. Unless he's lying about his mafia experience, I'm doubtful that will change.
1) I'm a girl
2) this is my second game here, but
3) in that game i said i'd been playing mafia for 5 years
also just call me Bear
you can call me 2/2 too, that's just as well
1. hawt
2. ok but...
3. Why did you lie? What am I supposed to think about that?
lol at 2/2. hawt was for the lulz btw. I have no clue what you look like obv.
Also, this doesn't make AB any more townie than I've already explained, but I think you could classify PG's initial attack onto AB as "noob-bashing". It's also attacking low-hanging fruit, going after lurkers right off the bat. But with the deflection attack and the "content?" attack, the whole attack reads very scummy.
Again... saw A Bear viewing this thread and again... no post...
Vote: A Bear for massive lurking.
maybe if you stopped posting massive walls of text i'd be able to post
can't you just link to the post you want or quote the part you're replying to instead of the entire freakin essay come on
one thing i've gathered is that people seem to be copying others' opinions and not making their own. stop that. it's a bad habit.
even if your opinion is similar you should write it out because you may realize something that you didn't before while typing
for example while writing this i decided that wessel is my greenest townread because his longpost was basically a cliffnotes of this game so far so i am in debt to him and also he hasn't tried to twist anything with his observations like other people are doing (everyone)
First, AB is a noob. His tells are going to be much more obvious than an experienced players. He proves it here over the frustration about walls-o-text. It's not an alignment tell at all, just helps us understand that he's completely new.
Now that it's firmly established that he's new, take a look at the bolded statements. A newer player calling out /barning as a bad habit strikes me as townie because he's preaching something that's generally a well known fact. He goes on to explain why voicing your opinion, even if it's similar to someone else's, is better play. Even though he's spouting well known things to experience mafia players, newer players may not know about these things. So not only is he showing a townie mindset by learning these things early, where scum would rather take advantage of these things, he's also preaching it, which is an incredibly protown move for a player who doesn't know any better.
Top it off with his last section, the second bolded part. He shows mass-paranoia, which is typical of a newer town player. Scum don't show paranoia because they know who they can trust, they know their partners. Noob townies aren't very willing to trust anyone and they let that be known.
At face value, I'm thinking AB is easily town. Unless he's lying about his mafia experience, I'm doubtful that will change.
I knew about the Hunter-Flicker combo, I just didn't see an opening for it in the deck. Not bad. I was considering also Silent Departure since it's cheap and has flashback. There are some other bounce effects too. Peel was more useful when I had multiple 1 drop dudes in there. Sanctifier was really useful to Peel with, but now that she's gone, I think I need to replace Peel with something better.
I think I can live with 3 Ooze. Also, the BoP is there to get a threat on T2 if need be. Growth is cool, but doesn't do as much for me in the long run, especially if I'm really really needing to bond to silverheart and fly over for lethal, which has happened a few times in the mirrormatch.
I was town. Just had to replace out to find a job. And I've found a job, not a great one, but one that pays me in money. So hopefully I won't have to replace out of any more games ever.
Second, I agree that RR played a stellar game and deserves the scum MVP award. I honestly thought that he would be killed the day of his replacement. The fact that we got a mislynch and kept him around for one more night phase was crucial to the game lasting as long as it did.
As for my own play, I didn't realize that I had so few posts in the game. My life issues were a burden on my gameplay, I just didn't realize the extent. Still, I feel like when I made a post, it was large and inclusive enough to make up for the small amount of posts. I will admit that in the last day, I pulled a planned lurk until I felt like commenting on the Cyouni wagon was safe enough. Not only did I do this to wait for Voxx's comments, but I was planning the angle I was going to push on the Cy wagon. I didn't want to come on too strong, as that might give me away. I also didn't want to limp onto the wagon, as it might raise some questions. I pushed on conviction, which I thought I had enough of myself. Void didn't see things my way and gut overpowered Voxx. Point is, I tried taking the most careful steps during the last day do get the mislynch without any major slip ups.
As for who should be the scum MVP, I don't see any reason why it can't be co-mvp. RR played amazingly and deserves it, but I also feel like I put in my work too, as much as I could anyway.
Regardless of awards, the town played really well the whole game. I had a lot of fun playing and hope this game has set a tone for league games to come. Good job to everyone involved and good game to everyone playing.
That's what makes me feel like it was a very circumstantial win for the town. If Cyan doesn't give a shot to Cyouni, scum win. If Voxx uses his RB any other day, scum (probably) win. There were too many town mechanics left over at the end to ruin me. Plus, we let Cyan just hand out Vig shots, in hopes that the shots would kill townies (they did) or that we would get them (I tried :[). I never thought that letting Cyan live so long to hand out one last vig shot would be my downfall. Hell, if Cyan had vig-gifted to anyone BUT Cyouni, the scum might have pulled out a win.
Very circumstantial, somewhat frustrating, very very good game. I had fun, that's what it comes down to for me.
There was no way that AE had targeted me. The way he put whatever people were calling a breadcrumb in thread made me sure of that fact. It also made me sure that AE was planning on targeting me. I didn't account for the fact that any unsure phrasing by me would sick the hounds on me. I honestly don't even know what mistake I made. I felt so unsure that I had even made a mistake that it made my defense that much more believable. I just thought the town was grasping at straws, which is probably what happened, but they happened to grasp at the right straws without knowing it.
Funny story about the AE NK. Me and RR were debating who the doc was and had been eliminating suspects. We settled on shooting WG that night, thinking it would net us the Doc. RR had some suspicions about AE though, seeing as how Voxx had confirmed him. We talk about it and I say "Ok, well, I'ma go send in the kill on WG." I get to the message, say "eff it, I'll go with AE instead" and boom. I went back into the mafia QT and told RR "Hey, I lied, I shot AE". Turned out pretty good.
Actually, I'm a perma-strongman. Mafia Ninja. I go through all forms of protections and preventions. Fairly handy role to have at endgame. Like I said, the only think I was worried about was the kill Cy had at the end.
GG guys. I tried. I thought I had it locked up there at the end when Void made the push against Cyouni for me. Cy was the only choice for a mislynch after he revealed he had a shot.
Voxx's gut saved this game for the town. He knew that every shred of evidence said lynch Cy, but chose to ignore the facts. I was really banking of Voxx to read the overwhelming evidence and put all his stock in it. Apparently Voxx his a sixth sense about these things. Kinda sucks being lynched and nobody ever presented anything against me.
Oh well. It was a hard fought battle and I think that each of you who made it to the end played an exceptional game. My hat's off to you. For being the last scum left, I had some very difficult choices to make as far as who to keep alive for the endgame and how to play the night.
Double-hat's off to Void. Even though you pushed on Cy at the end, you didn't let it cloud your judgement into being a stubborn bulldog at the end. I know you have struggled in the past, but you are really honing your skills as of late. You're incessant bulldogging questions as town is one thing I have grown to fear as a scum. Keep up the good work.
I don't know if I'll get in trouble for ending the game and admitting all of this before GanDan has a chance to do that himself, but seeing as how I've already been lynched I really don't think it should be a problem. It's been a long game. Fun at times, frustrating at others, and sometimes both. Thanks GanDan, I thought you were a damn good mod and the setup was well balanced, just as the name implied.
GG town. You got me.
As for his claim, I see no reason to believe it couldn't be a gambit. It's generally accepted in mafia that a miller claim should be done at the beginning of a game to make the person more trustworthy. Scum can and have falseclaimed Miller because all it takes is the early claim and some smooth talking and smooth gameplay to prevent being killed. It's not something I would expect an inexperienced player to pull off, but a scum with experience wouldn't have a problem with it. Cyouni's not a noob, and from what I've seen from his other games, he's perfectly capable of this level of play. That makes his claim neutral in my book.
Romney. He needs the support in these supposed "dark times". Also, he apparently only wrote a victory speech, that's what he told the media. So you know he needs a friend. He didn't even consider a loss.
First, my argument cares very little whether you did or didn't vote them, the fact that you threatened to vote the last player in is enough. Second, I see what you did there and I'll get to it later. Point is, you threatening to vote players that are lurking or OOG or generally not playing the game is a showy way of allowing yourself to not play the game.
Well, I said it when explaining why A Bear is obv town. Your condescending remarks not withstanding, I am here to help if you need it and I do have knowledge of how town and scum behave.
The non-content is your vote history and refusal to add to what's actually happening in the game. Your Research is the justifications for your non-content actions and it's flawed, which is why your actions can be proven to be non-content. This argument has been confused long enough.
Then why bring it up? You are now arguing that your own data is flawed, just as I have been arguing. Good day sir.
Reading through the thread, your posts jumped out at me for reasons that I've explained a million times now, and I went head-first into the wall-post pool and came out with a goldmine. I built my case and analysis and didn't really look into anything that wasn't written by you. You'll have to forgive me for not including the only other serious vote that was on you at the time. Would you rather I just /barn his vote? Probably not. I find it much better to post my own case, my own reasoning and analysis.
Also, I find it funny that people attack me for ganging up on you with Lamp and when I vehemently deny that, you attack me for NOT working with Lamp. There's no happy medium here is there?
Believe it or not, that's up to you. What you really need to focus on is how whatever you believe affects my alignment. I don't think me not including Lamp's arguments in my own says anything about my alignment whatsoever, let alone me being scummy for it, as you are trying to imply.
Like I said, I've got my own arguments and reasoning. I don't need another players, I don't need to repost their arguments into my own.
The match was, is and will continue to be lit. Your early posts contain several examples of you avoiding gameplay with OOG issues. I've proven that. The only thing that's changed since then is me calling you out on it and you OMGUSing me with that vote of yours, and then twisting arguments every which way to call me scum for attacking you.
So I'm scum because I'm possibly tunnelvisioning on you? I'll admit, I've been slightly tunneled on you for a while, but you've grabbed my attention in a fierce way ever since you decided to OMGUS me. Still, I don't feel like I've gotten out of hand, I've been keeping an eye on PG and throwing my support for IB and A Bear. The only thing suggesting my tunnelvision is that I missed Lamp's vote on you. I wouldn't say that I'm ignoring other players, I'm very much receptive to what's going on in this game. At the time I cased you, maybe you had me a bit too distracted, but I wouldn't say that I'm "pretending" by any means. That's a smear and you know it. You may think I'm pretending to have missed something, but I'm beginning to think it's you with the tunnelvision, because you seem to be twisting history as you see fit.
Wrong. What I did and what you did are two completely different things. You threatened to vote for one of the two people who haven't checked in, and only shortly after the game began. That's scummy because you are attacking players who've yet to post, you are attacking low hanging fruit (a scum tactic), you are threatening to vote them (remember, we don't vote lurkers, we ask that they be replaced), and you are doing it all after the RVS ended, so you could have been commenting on things that were actually happening in the game.
I wasn't calling for a vote. I called out several lurkers after several days had passed. I did this in addition to playing the game at hand. I called out both the players that had yet to check in and the players that had checked in a disappeared. I also made the comment that it's highly likely that one of the 6 lurkers I called out is scum. I also have good reasoning for calling out a few individuals.
First, Seppel and Voxx are incredibly strong assets to have on the town side. They are very experienced. If they are town, I want them in this game, and since I have no reason to believe that they aren't, I'm calling the out of lurking. Second, Reya is a player that I believe would lurk as scum. I believe his meta proves this, making it a good reason to call him out.
Finally, I believe that if there is one scum in those 6 and you held a gun to my head and told me to pick the scummy one, I'd choose Reya. But by no means is that a very educated guess. Any one of those players could be scum. None of them could be scum. All of them could be scum. Fact is, we don't know till they start posting more content. While I may have implied that scum lie in that pool of lurkers, I'm not going to point a finger at any specific person because I have absolutely nothing to support that theory. I've got only one lead, the meta lead on Reya, and meta is a shaky thing to trust. Fact is, lurkers aren't meant to be voted, they're meant to be replaced.
Point is, what you did was scummy because of the way you did it. You weren't calling out lurkers. You were threatening non-active players (by non-active I mean hadn't even checked in, different from lurking) with a vote in the early stages of the game as a means to avoid in-game play. I called out the whole lot of lurkers, not with intention of vote but just to call them out, after multiple days, maybe a weeks worth of time so that there's no doubt they lurked while also focusing my attention to in game matters.
I don't know. Lemme read him up real quick.
KK, back. Turns out he hasn't posted for pages, but from what I've read, his logic is sound. He called you out a while back for only quoting half his sentence and you trying to make him look bad for it. He also stayed fairly calm under that pressure, whereas the returned pressure on you didn't go so well. You said you weren't concerned by me and Lamp calling you a "baddie" and Lamp was quick to point out that he said nothing of the sort, just that he voted you. You seem to have overreacted to the pressure on you there.
Wonderful sarcasm. Now put it away, get out your analysis, think hard for a while, and realize that what I did and what Kank did have only one thing in common. We were both talking about players not playing the game. Aside from that, there are no similarities, because the manner with which Kank called out lurkers was incredibly scummy, as I've explained. Also, do the math. 6 lurkers in a game with 23 players, that's 26.08% of the playerbase. There are likely 5-6 scum in the game. That's 21.79% of the playerbase at least. The chances of the whole 6 lurkers being the scum team is low, but the chances of one of those lurkers being scum is very very high.
By all means, though, if your sarcasm hat is that comfy, then overlook my logic and continue to throw politically-fueled jokes around to twist my words. I assure you though, your flashy bit of sarcasm might fill you with some ego-boosting bravado, but it only serves to make you look foolish when you are wrong.
BTW, I've been up all night and am having a fairly annoying day, so if there's just a touch of 'bite me' in the tone of this post, you have my apologies.
I see, you've played mafia before just not on this site, except for one time. I called you a liar because it looked like you were saying that this is only your second game, but in your first game you told them you had five years experience. See what I'm saying?
When I'm reading the player list, I identify names that aren't familiar to me. I play a lot of games and read a lot of games and tend to know if a player has been around much at all. That being said, when I read the player list, I thought that Ferro Man, Raging Levine, Misting, Captain Eddie, LampDwellr, Kank, Tom, Macius, Bolly, A Bear, Stardust, PG and Maokun were all noobs. I recognize only some of those names and that's only because mafia isn't the only part of the forum I read. Furthermore, EtR, Reya, Kahedron, and IB are all newer players, not quite noob anymore, but still figuring out the game. Maybe Kahedron is more experienced that I'm thinking, but he plays very few games from what I've seen. That leaves Seppel, Wrath of Dog, Dork Knight, Wessel and Voxxicus as players that I know have experience playing this game.
I may have jumped to conclusions with who I assumed was a noob and for that I'm sorry if I've offended anyone.
A. Your frustration at non-playing players is fine, we are all frustrated that they aren't playing. However, the solution to that problem is and has always been asking the mod to find a replacement. Voting for a player that's not in the game is a scum strategy. Not only does it let you vote and attack someone who doesn't fight back, but it makes you look like you are providing content to the thread without actually providing anything. That's why I'm calling you scummy.
B. It's good that you are looking for behaviorial patterns, but be careful. There are a lot of behaviorial patterns that town and scum can share. The differences lie in their presentation and the situations in which they are behaving. Finding the behaviorial analysis on a player is like finding the motive for a crime. It's great and all, but the motive isn't going to send them to jail, you still need evidence.
C. Actually, /barn means that you agree with whoever you are barning. When IB /barned Wessel's post about RVS being over, he was simply stating that he agrees with what Wessel said. You can /barn a vote, but not all /barns have something to do with voting.
D. This is the kind of thinking that made me call A Bear obvtown. While I'm inclined to believe you hear, the fact is that you made this comment after I had declared mass=paranoia to be a towntell. There's no way of knowing if your faking it or not. BTW, the jokey "Who's there?" bit at the beginning of this makes me less inclined to believe it.
E. Like I've said before, while I have a problem with your research, it's not what makes you scum to me. Its that you have been hiding behind the research in order to justify you not actually voting anyone in the game. You were using that research to post non-content things and appear useful to the town, your posts were all for appearances. I thought it looked scummy, I disproved the legitimacy of the research and I proceeded to explain my thought process and place my vote. I fail to see how that's predatory in any way, I made a case and made my vote. You OMGUS'd me, proceeded to skew my attack to be more about the research than anything else and have, at the time of this reading, suggested that I'm partnered with Lampdwellr just because we are both voting you, which has kept the terrible "noob-bashing" argument afloat.
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
Secondly, you state later on that you believe Lamp and me to be in league, that we are both scum. Have you done any analysis on Lamp to show that he's had scummy actions on his own, or are you just tying him to me because we both voted you?
Once again, you are putting to much stock into how much stock I'm putting in the research, if that makes sense. The research argument was only a support to show that his justification for his non-content posts was flawed. So, my arguments were as such - Kank is posting non-content, which is scummy, and he says he can justify it, which is scummy too, because there's zero justification for posting non-content that I can think of. Regardless, his justification (the research) is flawed, so justified or not, his non-content is scummy!
I said earlier, in an argument to Kank, that you can have a motive for someones crime, but you also need side evidence. The research argument is my side evidence for the larger "Kank is a no-content posting noob scum" argument I have been trying to make.
Well, first, because damn near three-quarters of this game is full of noobs, at least to me, as I've explained earlier.
Second, I didn't say I was noob-smashing, but if everyone is going to claim that any attack on a newer player is a "smash" attempt, then there's no use in actually playing this game. There are far too many new or newer players that tip-toeing around them isn't going to get us anywhere. I don't think the way I was playing was "smashing", I even attempted to thwart that argument when I initially made my argument against Kank. I've kept the same level of aggression that I would show to anyone else and I don't believe my tactics to be twisted by any means. "GRICKY SMASH" just isn't a thing, and smashing in general is a rather poor argument anyway. At some point, a noob is going to need to be questioned about something. They aren't babies, they're just new mafia players. I've even seen plenty of newer players that stand up mightily against some of the experienced players we have. I see this "noob-smashing" argument as an excuse to coddle the newer players and a hinderence on anyone who actually wants to accomplish an interrogation in this game.
So apparently Lamp was on Kank too. However, twisting that into a "gang-up" seems like you are twisting the argument quite a bit. I have no fear of being coupled with Lamp, it's just that there's nothing to couple. The only thing we share is that we both voted Kank, for different reasons too. And I wasn't the one who brought ganging-up up. I can't remember who was attacking me at the time, I think it was PG, but I believe he mentioned that I was ganging up on Kank, which is why I brought it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, players I'd like to hear from soon, because hey look, they've disappeared!
Seppel, Reya, Raging Levine, Captain Eddie, Voxx, Macius and I think that's it.
Interesting story, that's 3 men and 3 women. Could it be our scumteam? Doubtful, but worth thinking about. Chances are good that there's at least one scum there.
1. hawt
2. ok but...
3. Why did you lie? What am I supposed to think about that?
lol at 2/2. hawt was for the lulz btw. I have no clue what you look like obv.
First, AB is a noob. His tells are going to be much more obvious than an experienced players. He proves it here over the frustration about walls-o-text. It's not an alignment tell at all, just helps us understand that he's completely new.
Now that it's firmly established that he's new, take a look at the bolded statements. A newer player calling out /barning as a bad habit strikes me as townie because he's preaching something that's generally a well known fact. He goes on to explain why voicing your opinion, even if it's similar to someone else's, is better play. Even though he's spouting well known things to experience mafia players, newer players may not know about these things. So not only is he showing a townie mindset by learning these things early, where scum would rather take advantage of these things, he's also preaching it, which is an incredibly protown move for a player who doesn't know any better.
Top it off with his last section, the second bolded part. He shows mass-paranoia, which is typical of a newer town player. Scum don't show paranoia because they know who they can trust, they know their partners. Noob townies aren't very willing to trust anyone and they let that be known.
At face value, I'm thinking AB is easily town. Unless he's lying about his mafia experience, I'm doubtful that will change.