Newbie 991 - Newbieville! (Game Over)

[seth]

so after he catches up your one vote will be able to lynch him?

you're going to ignore all the 'evidence' that anton gave you?

him catching up shouldn't affect you pushing him. it sounds like you're getting very close to setting up lynches which I don't like.

[Thor665]

Do you think I should be more aggressive about Anton then I have been? Why is that?

If you think I should be less aggressive, please tell me why as well.

Also, how do you think I'm "setting up lynches"?

[Cirno]

why was it important for you to know when/how I'd cleared your slot?

"Why is it important to know why I have cleared players after I mention that seth is a suspect by process of elimination?"

Also, how would you feel about an Anton lynch today?

I would not vote Anton at the moment.

[Thor665]

"Why is it important to know why I have cleared players after I mention that seth is a suspect by process of elimination?"

"Why do you accept the others I said I cleared/didn't clear and ask for specific information about my clearing of you?"

[seth]

When did I ever say that?

I'm confused because first you said that you would lynch Sunday after he caught up, which makes it sound like you're going to lynch him because of Anton's behavior, and then you said that you were waiting for evidence from Sunday before you lynched him which makes it sound like you're not going to lynch Sunday because of Anton's behavior.

It sounds like you're setting up a policy lynch as you're not even going to consider Sunday as town, but you're just going to lynch him regardless for seemingly contradictory reasons.

[Cirno]

"Why do you accept the others I said I cleared/didn't clear and ask for specific information about my clearing of you?"

"Why do you ask why I've cleared a player I've never given even an opinion of?"

YOUR MOVE
COME AT ME BRO

[Thor665]

::rubs temples and chants 'this is a Newbie game' over and over::

him catching up shouldn't affect you pushing him.

This pretty much sums up the part of your post I have issue with. You're saying to me to either be more or less aggressive then my current stance because either I should let him catch up or I shouldn't. That's what I read when I see this. If you don't feel this way then maybe you should simply let me pressure him in the way I feel is appropriate.

I dramatically disagree that I'm setting up a Policy Lynch and would challenge you to explain how I am.

@Cirno...bwuh? I gave opinions on Mrs Sak - Mrs Sak equates to you. If you have an issue with me clearing your slot because of a previous player then say so and explain how it's a scummy/bad play. If not, please answer the original question.

YOUR MOVE, SIS

[seth]

I challenge you to quote me where I said "Be more/less aggressive."

Anton wasn't on your list a few pages back. But you want to push him over me and CT, why?

[Thor665]

I challenge you to quote me where I said "Be more/less aggressive."

I quoted exactly where I believe you said it and explained why in my last post. Address it or don't, but at least read and acknowledge my posts before challenging me on them.

Anton wasn't on your list a few pages back. But you want to push him over me and CT, why?

You need to understand the difference between implied and stated stances.

You avoided/missed the policy lynch question.

[Cirno]

@Cirno...bwuh? I gave opinions on Mrs Sak - Mrs Sak equates to you. If you have an issue with me clearing your slot because of a previous player then say so and explain how it's a scummy/bad play. If not, please answer the original question.

Hmm, this is a tough question. Maybe if we go back and examine the context of the question we can uncover the truth.

Gut.

Process of elimination.

Playstyle meta.
Unwillingness to take a stand on issues.

Why do you choose to eliminate Willow, Anton, Cirno, Reluctant, and Aranneas?

I've already explained

in thread why I eliminate

Cirno

, reluctant, and Arranneas.

I can't seem to find an explanation of why you would eliminate Cirno

. Can you link me to a post or explain it for me?

Hmm, I think we can deduce that Cirno could not find a post in which Thor had eliminated Cirno from suspicion. I think this is a big clue. We should keep it in mind as we look at Cirno's more recent posts.

"Why is it important to know why I have cleared players after I mention that

seth is a suspect by process of elimination

?"

From here we can deduce that Cirno believes it is important to know why each 'eliminated' player was not suspected by Thor.

"Why do you ask why I've cleared a player I've

never given even an opinion of

?"

Hmm, another sarcastic post. I wish Cirno would just give a straight answer. Anyway, here Cirno once again mentions that Thor never gave an opinion on Cirno. This is probably important.

...I think I have some idea of what happened. I would like to present the following theory: Cirno wished to know why Willow, Anton, Cirno, Reluctant, and Aranneas had been 'eliminated' by Thor. Thor gave reasons for Willow and Anton, and said that he had already explained why Cirno, Reluctant, and Aranneas had been removed from suspicion. Cirno searched Thor's Iso, and could not find any reason Thor would eliminate Cirno from suspicion anywhere. That being the case, Cirno chose to ask Thor why Cirno had been eliminated from suspicion.

If that theory is true, then we can answer the question as follows: Cirno questioned Thor about why Cirno was eliminated because Thor had never given a reason that Cirno should not be suspected.

We can never be 100% of our answer, but I think this is about as close to the truth as we can get with our current evidence.

[Thor665]

Left out of your narrative
^^^
Reason given.

So your answer to my question is you asked because you only did a search for Cirno and not a search for Mrs Sak and you're confused by me referring to you as Cirno as opposed to Cirno/Mrs Sak?

[seth]

I challenge you to quote me where I said "Be more/less aggressive."

I quoted exactly where I believe you said it and explained why in my last post. Address it or don't, but at least read and acknowledge my posts before challenging me on them.

Anton wasn't on your list a few pages back. But you want to push him over me and CT, why?

You need to understand the difference between implied and stated stances.

You avoided/missed the policy lynch question.

Did CTRL + F "Be more/less aggressive." and couldn't find it in your post. Sorry

You need to explain your answer.

Why should I explain my answers if you aren't going to explain yours? The hell does 'implied and stated stances' have to do with anything?

[Cirno]

@Thor: That reason was given after I asked the question. It has nothing to do with why the question was asked.

While we are on the subject of Mrs Sak, I have two questions:
Can you point me to the exact post in which you 'eliminate' her.
Do you think it is a good idea to base your read of the Cirno/Sak slot on Mrs Sak though Cirno has more than 3 times as many posts as Mrs Sak?

[Thor665]

tl:dr

Explain my stance to seth some more
Link Cirno to Sak clearing by Thor
Ask her why she wants me to put her in the crucible

==================================================
==================================================

You need to explain your answer.

You asked me why I need to wait for him to "catch up" that implies that you're wondering why am I not voting him now (i.e. be more aggressive, or why are you being aggressive without a vote?)
And say it shouldn't effect me pushing him (and since I have been pushing him this then also means you want me to either do more (vote) or do less (not be pushing him in the way I am)

My answer, in short, was telling you that I am pushing him exactly as much as I think I should be and I asked you to explain why I should do more or do less then what I was and have been doing.

Does that help you understand my position now? If so, please answer the initial question, if not, explain where I'm losing you.

Why should I explain my answers if you aren't going to explain yours? The hell does 'implied and stated stances' have to do with anything?

When did I refuse to explain an answer?

For implied and stated I'm not sure how much more clear I can get. If you let me know specifically what's confusing you about the answer I'll try to zero in - I think you have difficulty telling the difference between stances of the two types.

@Thor: That reason was given after I asked the question. It has nothing to do with why the question was asked.

I'm just surprised you were so standoffish if that was the extent of the reason.

Can you point me to the exact post in which you 'eliminate' her.

viewtopic.php?p=2414979#p2414979

Do you think it is a good idea to base your read of the Cirno/Sak slot on Mrs Sak though Cirno has more than 3 times as many posts as Mrs Sak?

On Day 1, yeah, why not?

Should

I be suspicious of you?

[Cirno]

On Day 1, yeah, why not?

"Cirno has more than 3 times as many posts as Mrs Sak"

Should

I be suspicious of you?

I don't think you should base a read of a slot on the player with 6 posts.

Anyway, the obvious next question is "What do you think of Cirno's play"? Does Cirno give you a different read than Mrs Sak?

@Sundy and zipperflesh

: I'm asking in advance "for top three suspects and why?". Also, zipperflesh is a creepy name and you should feel bad for having it.

[seth]

Anton wasn't on your list a few pages back. But you want to push him over me and CT, why?

[Thor665]

@Cirno - If I wanted to make a case on you I would. You're town, get over it.

@seth - I answered that question, you just don't understand the answer. Ask me again after Sunday/Anton catches up and I'll go more in depth. Until then, draw your own conclusions - all the information is there already.

[zipperflesh]

Also, zipperflesh is a creepy name and you should feel bad for having it.

You can call me Zipper.

=================================

Unvote. Vote: Captain Travis

It's not so much that he was following Thor, but that he was following lynches. Seems to me a scum Travis wants to keep on the popular lynch.

I also sense some distancing from Thor, especially when he called Travis out for actively lurking and following him. What was interesting for me was the fact that Thor felt the need to bring Travis actions to light, yet decided against voting someone who was obviously acting in a scummy manner.

I also have a vague suspicion of Aran, but it's mostly gut based pretty much on the earlier cases against him (if I'm remembering right) and his lack of activity now that Thor and Travis are under the gun.

==================================

That was a lot of content for ten pages, and I know I haven't done it justice in my short response, but it's all I got in me at the moment.

[Thor665]

@zipperflesh - Does your logic for scumThor distancing from scumTravis include an explanation for me calling him out while everyone else thought he was town?

At the very least I'll be fascinated to watch you and EarthIntruder duel over my potential buddies.

What are your thoughts on EI's claims that willows_weep/zipperflesh was following me as much, if not more, then Travis (and both of these followings being towards lynches if that's how you'd like to phrase the discussion)?

[Cirno]

@Cirno - If I wanted to make a case on you I would.

I want to know what you think of Mrs Sak's replacement, sir. You've listed process of elimination as a reason for suspecting seth. You seem to be eliminating Cirno based on Mrs Sak's posts. How can you suspect seth over Cirno, if you've not even taken Cirno's more numerous posts into consideration? Was Mrs Sak so townie as to have guaranteed the alignment of the slot?

@Zipper: What is your opinion on Reluctant and EarthIntruder?

[Thor665]

@Cirno - there is actually no real need for me to explain a town read on Cirno (especially to *you* of all people). That said you're clearly overworking this in your head (as usual) so I'll humor you on this.

1. You enter the game and express suspicion of Travis and scapegoat/EarthIntruder (both of my top suspects at the time - this is a null tell and actually a slight ding on you, but hey, you agree with my logic, you're probably just being smart)
2. You then avoid getting on the easy wagon of EarthIntruder, why? Gut. You say it's gut and basically spit on the case on EI (only way this is scummy is if you're EI's buddy - I'd want to lynch EI first in this case, so this is town points currently)
3. After spitting on the most popular wagon of the moment you try to start up the Travis one on gut. (null with town leanings)
4. I consider your playstyle to be consistent with what I know your town playstyle to be (null with town leanings)

The worst I can say about you is that you're still a bit too heavy of an OMGUS style player (very reactionary in sometimes bad ways) and you have your usual sense of absolute assurance you're right - which still makes me worried about you being at lylo. However neither of those things are inherent scumtells.

Ergo - you are town enough that I have zero desire to lynch you today and consequently you are ruled out in order to make my Day One lynch hopefully more accurate.

Now, a question for you - what has this exchange gotten us as far as finding scum? (because I'm not smart enough to see it)

[Thor665]

^^^

Oh, yeah, also I thought Mrs Sak was town for reasons already noted - that helps.

[Cirno]

what has this exchange gotten us as far as finding scum?

How are we to find scum if not by questioning suspects, sir?

I think that your claim that seth was unwilling to take a stand was nonsense.
I

know

your claim that seth was playing differently than he does as town was nonsense.
I wanted to know if the "process of elimination" bit was nonsense as well and these question were in pursuit of answering that.

[Thor665]

and you have your usual sense of absolute assurance you're right

Though not all of my reads are off, amirite

Thus far you have established that you disagree with my scumtells - this is not an earth shattering revelation in the game of Mafia. What have you actually deduced?

[Coach Travis]

@zipper:I get that my way voting pattern looks really bad on me, but go over my early posts again:First off, I made a big post explaining thoughts on everyone that had posted to that point, and gave an explanation for why I found Reluctant suspicious, which was more based on my own read than it was just following a wagon. Then I only unvoted him when I felt he was playing better, addressing concerns I had about him, and generally seeming townish. Basically, I did in fact have legit reasons for all of that.

As for my current vote:I was suspicious of scapegoat right from the start, before anyone made a serious vote on him. Everything I said about him was negative, I simply was not convinced he was town at all, and so far EarthIntruder has done nothing to convince me otherwise, all his arguments merely seemed desperate and totally failed. He seems the scummiest to me, and the best lynch option. So again, that vote has legit reasoning.

Anyway, good post from zipper, he's at least willing to share thoughts right away and get into scumhunting, he's already more helpful than willows_weep was, so that's good.