Newbie 1484 (Day Two)

[Hopkirk]

I've been playing over a year on another mafia site. Probably around 10 or so games.


I'll

vote Hopkirk

cause if one of the helpers is bound to be scum then one us is guaranteed to voting for mafia.

This is untrue. There is an equal chance any player can be scum and that's not affected by ic/se/newbie.

Bul want to explain why you want to trick the newbies?

[Hopkirk]

I've been playing over a year on another mafia site. Probably around 10 or so games.


I'll

vote Hopkirk

cause if one of the helpers is bound to be scum then one us is guaranteed to voting for mafia.

This is untrue. There is an equal chance any player can be scum and that's not affected by ic/se/newbie.

Bul want to explain why you want to trick the newbies?

Defensive much?

Unvote

Vote Hopkirk

No i just think it's completely against the spirit of being an ic to be giving the new players misinformation in your ic intro post.

Want to explain why then, dodging my q much.

[Hopkirk]

"Because one of my helper monkeys is bound to be scum."
If there is someone who doesn't know how game works and you say this when explaining how to play there's only one possible way they'll interpret it.

That is NOT equal to saying it's an "equal chance", see lessthanoriginal seems to have believed it. That is the misinformation.

For the third time- why are you saying that?

Pedit- It's purely random. You can pick any 3 random people and it'll be the same chance as for se/se/ic. You're using false statistics now to try and distort things and I'd like you to tell us why.

[Hopkirk]

"it's not like you would always have to flip all of them in order to get to the Mafia member."

There does not have to be any mafia within the ses/ic. this is why i'm saying he's giving false information as you've just said you believe there's always at least one scum there.

pedit- yes he said it was random then said BOUND which means always for something that isn't true.

The two newbies seem to believe you saying one of the se/se/ic must be scum which is where this is coming from. You said this directly in your first post which is why i'm obviously correcting you and ASKING WHY YOU SAID IT.

[Hopkirk]

"But you only said something when somebody voted you": My first post of the game? The misrepping begins i see. It's pretty obvious i don't care about jarjar- he was random, you're i one i'm suspicious of for trying to trick newbies with false information.

[Hopkirk]

26- Because I was telling him you were lying to him.
29- I have clearly said I don’t care about jar jar. I care about YOU for giving misinformation to newbies.
30- I am now because he’s ignored a direct question 5ish times. Making the same post in and previous game then linking to it… he can do that as scum, if he thinks it worked last time it takes away the risk for him in rvs this time (he hoped).
33- You REALLY haven’t read my posts have you, since that’s not even what I’m asking him about.
36- Bulb trying to straw man faries by picking an unimportant point and pretending it’s crucial to what she’s saying.
37- That’s not what an omgus is and he isn’t pressuring me at all… Btw I’ve played 20ish games on/off site.

One last time (6th time I think) or there’s a vote going on bulb until he does answer.

Why do you say this “Because one of my helper monkeys is bound to be scum.” Aka lie to new players in the middle of two paragraphs on how to play. A new player reading that would believe it to be true- as it’s in the “how to play” part thus it appears as a deliberate attempt to trick them- explain yourself.
Furthermore why do you keep acting like I’m talking about jarjar. I have been only talking about YOU.

[Hopkirk]

One last time (6th time I think) or there’s a vote going on bulb until he does answer.

Why do you say this “Because one of my helper monkeys is bound to be scum.” Aka lie to new players in the middle of two paragraphs on how to play. A new player reading that would believe it to be true- as it’s in the “how to play” part thus it appears as a deliberate attempt to trick them- explain yourself.

Ok, this line of questioning is pretty terrible. He linked to a previous game where he did the same thing. Therefore if you are trying to accuse him of purposefully misleading noobs because he's scum and wants to make them vote for the SE guys, your argument falls flat.


And I dont understand saying "there’s a vote going on bulb until he does answer". He did answer in post 14. He said he didnt mislead. What more do you want?

See it's a loaded question. You're basically asking: Why did you purposefully lie?

Explain to me what type of answer he could possible give to that question that would make him anything but scum. The fact that you're not voting him doesn't make sense. You're not asking him if he did purposefully mislead. You're asking him why he did it. And if you've already decided that he did, then there's no answer that should make you think he isn't scum.

1.) IT was successful for him last time. He’s arguing doing it again makes him the same allignemnt as last time. I say it means nothing as if he’s scum he would be saying it so he could self-meta later/now.
2.) “He said he didn’t mislead”… he did though; see the point I’m trying to make?
3.) I’m asking why he chose to say it in the middle of his intro post in a position that makes it appear a fact. Then he lies about it despite proof being there…

It could just be a bad IC tell though rather than a scumtell but it seems scummy to me.

Faries seems too bogged down in %s and stats rather than what’s actually going on, that’s feeling off too.

[Hopkirk]

Bulb/48.
1.) You place it in such a way it appears to be part of your intro so yeah lie by placement.
2.) You are ignoring the fact that’s the first time I came to the thread + my first post why?
3.) Yes it is null, I’m telling that to the person who thinks it’s town.
4.) Sounds like you’re saying their point is invalid because a minor point is wrong to me.
5.) The first newbie to post believed you. Another one later did too. Yet you feel justified in saying “nobody would believe me” how?

And posturing, what is that?

@Faries: It takes out the personal aspect that allows people to actually get reads. Thus it appears you’re trying to avoid letting people get a read on you.

Bulb is acting far too defensive.

[Hopkirk]

I want to play. Is it too late to join?

It is too late.
If you aren't in a game please don't talk during it.
If you want to play as a new player try posting /in here:http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28176 and you will get a game (may be a slight wait).

[Hopkirk]

I have a better lead. Bulb is neutrally read by hop.

Vote faries

[Hopkirk]

Other thing isn't going anywhere and I'm just restating the same thing over and over so it's not an effective use of my time + It's allowing people to fly under the radar too much.

[Hopkirk]

53 and 55 are reason enough.

[Hopkirk]

1.) You don’t say at any point it’s not serious. The rest of it is serious. There is no way a new player is going to know it’s not serious if it’s in the part your explaining the game (if they haven’t played before).
2.) Because you said twice that I only “made a deal of it after jarjar voted me”… despite the fact I wasn’t here BEFORE jarjar voted and I didn’t reference jarjr at all. This just sounds like you trying to shift the blame to jarjar from yourself. It’s relevant as you’re making a major misrep (implying I posted before jarjar when I didn’t) central to what you’re saying.

@Thesoc: So someone has a wagon on them then someone else votes them is bandwagoning. It’s still bandwagoning even if you say it is… the difference would be having reason.

[Hopkirk]

even if you say it isn't*

[Hopkirk]

Do you not like my bow-tie and top hat?

[Hopkirk]

Screwed up what?

[Hopkirk]

@Bul:

“I didn’t reference jarjr at all”
“I never implied that.W

Hopkirk, it's a random vote. Why are you freaking out so much over it? Is it because that JarJar accidentally nailed you, and now you're ticked at being caught for not only the wrong reason, but a very bad one?

But you only said something when somebody voted you. You didn't treat it as a random vote or as a vote of no consequence. You freaked out and got defensive unjustifiably. It should be apparent that I was voting in reference of the RVS phase that I just got done talking about. What would have been different if I would have said that everybody who loved cats always drew scum, or that anybody whose name started with an H tended to draw scum, or that anybody with the name JarJar ALWAYS drew scum? What would be the difference? Absolutely nothing. But you made it a big deal. Why? Because someone voted you in jest using what was obviously silly reasoning.

"But you only said something when somebody voted you": My first post of the game? The misrepping begins i see. It's pretty obvious i don't care about jarjar- he was random, you're i one i'm suspicious of for trying to trick newbies with false information.

I've been playing over a year on another mafia site. Probably around 10 or so games.


I'll

vote Hopkirk

cause if one of the helpers is bound to be scum then one us is guaranteed to voting for mafia.

This is untrue. There is an equal chance any player can be scum and that's not affected by ic/se/newbie.

Bul want to explain why you want to trick the newbies?

Now this post on the other hand, I'm not sure I like:

Hopkirk, it's a random vote. Why are you freaking out so much over it? Is it because that JarJar accidentally nailed you, and now you're ticked at being caught for not only the wrong reason, but a very bad one?

How would he be "caught" or "nailed"? Like you said in your post, it's the RVS. None of the votes in this stage are likely to stick since there's no actual reason for them.

Do you really think he'd be mad about it as scum? Because even if he thought that I was really voting for that reason, it would obviously be explained (and it was) that roles are determined randomly.

I think he's scum that misjudged the seriousness of your vote and freaked out unnecessarily. His response was not a townie one.

The things you denied saying are said in those 4 posts. Lynch all liars?

@Scotor: Who is cabd in this game…
Also I’ve already said why and I’m not restating stuff I’ve already said pointlessly.
@Lessthanoriginal: You hve a scummy playstyle.


“I hope that people have enough common sense to recognize a random vote right after I got done talking about random votes.”
(how do i put an image in my post)
http://imgur.com/fxSxzA0

[Hopkirk]

@Lessthanoriginal: You hve a scummy playstyle.

I prefer to call it "null". But are you talking about my normal playstyle from how I described it, or how I've been playing in this game? (Or both?)

How you described it sounds scummy but i'm null atm.

[Hopkirk]

I don't really want an avatar; it's just that other people's can mess me up .

I really do suggest you get an avatar. It helps players to easily identify the author of a post when reading.

The things you denied saying are said in those 4 posts. Lynch all liars?

Point out where I said or implied that you posted BEFORE JarJar.

how do i put an image in my post

If you go to "Preview Post", you'll see a button that says "img". Put the image link in there.

"But you only said something when somebody voted you."
If you draw suspicion from me only saying something after him then it is directly implied i could have said something before him.

[Hopkirk]

Considering i posted without reference to jarjar why would you think it was a response to him?

[Hopkirk]

Without reference in terms of accusation.

I was simply telling him you're wrong then blaming you.

[Hopkirk]

In the game I observed, one player tried to post a reads list on day 1 and everybody else said wait for day 2. The only newbie player in that game was the one who tried to post the reads list so I think I will wait till day 2.

Not going to say anything about your wagon?

I prefer just to give scumreads rather than scaled townreads now.

[Hopkirk]

Jarjar is rubbing me the wrong way. Sounds like he's sitting on the side and trying to incite a town on town. He also tries the whole “one’s gotta be scum” thing.

Also “And also, if it can help scum choose their NK, it can also help people w/ protection roles choose their targets.” Both protectors having mafia roleblocker in their column. It sounds like a slip kind of as it sonds like he knows there is a protector.

I will need to check his other posts but now he’s a significant scumread of mine.

[Hopkirk]

The scumslip is you’d only know it’s a fact if you were scum. Since you’re saying it that way you’re either doc/jailkeeper or scum.

The one has to be scum is implied, not stated, by your reads on me and bulb.

Incite= 101

Soctor: obliviously it's the wagon on you i'm talking about... Biggest wagon and you don't make any game specific content is suspicious... then you vote me (seemingly for questioning you) right after that.

[Hopkirk]

The way you said it sounds like you know there is a protector. This isn't enough to justify a significant scumread though.
Ok.

UNVOTE: Jarjar

Intent to vote socra but don't want to put him on l-1 yet.

[Hopkirk]

Also “And also, if it can help scum choose their NK, it can also help people w/ protection roles choose their targets.” Both protectors having mafia roleblocker in their column. It sounds like a slip kind of as it sonds like he knows there is a protector.

There's also setups featuring protectors and no roleblockers. This is quite a leap to make.

The scumslip is you’d only know it’s a fact if you were scum. Since you’re saying it that way you’re either doc/jailkeeper or scum.

Why would you even say this as town?

Response to both:
Because the both setups with roleblocker have protect, sounds like he was 100% sure there was one.
Why did you bring it up after i said it didn't matter?

[Hopkirk]

And then he ignores the q again and purposly misquotes something (by leaving out the word don't which is right before what he quotes) i say then continues with his previous stuff.

Vote soctor

@No1: That's not what i was saying but i no longer care about what i was saying.

[Hopkirk]

"Because it was an awfully big oversight."
No you just aren't reading what i said. Anything with roleblocker in it also has a protect role. If he was scum he must know there's a scum roleblocker thus a protector.

"Yes, Hopkirk freaked out over an RVS vote"
Uh no, i pushed you on it and you kept ignoring my questions which is pretty scummy imo. "he instead accused me of cheating" and i never said this so quit the misrep.
And i caught you early (though i have had second thoughts at times but you keep making yourself look bad again).

"A normal reaction is not to attack the IC over a joke"
And yet you never bothered to say it was a joke at the start when i asked why you said it. Changing reasons again i see.

Bulb getting much scummier again.

[Hopkirk]

Honestly, I really don't understand why Hopkirk is seen as the scummier of the two between him and Bulb.

I currently thing that Bulba is scummier than Hopkirk.

It's not.
It just looks that way as bulb's a loud person.

[Hopkirk]

@Bulb:
1.) Because that can’t be applied to anything? If you say “ooh it’s pointless to say that as it doesn’t 100% prove they’re scum” then you can’t say anything at all. You need to actually do stuff or nothing gets down.
2.) The past tense implies the past.
3.) If you read the post while pretending you have no knowledge of the game you would see how someone believing it totally would be misled.
4.) I never attacked the vote, I attacked the placement of a comment in a post.

My feelings on bulb and mixed and I do not want to a lynch on him today.

[Hopkirk]

This is my int of the start:
-explains what rvs is
-places a vote implied to be random
-You say one of the ses is confirmed to be scum
-it’s implied to be randomly selected between the two ses
-Jarjar (new) then appear to believe that statement
-Jar jar was misled by your statement as he believed one of the ses had to be scum as you said
-You misled jarjar
-I accused you of misleading him (later others too)
-You denied it
-It happened.

[Hopkirk]

Awwwww my first ever mafia game and I'm most likely going to get lynched.

It is my fault though as I voted on someone who already had votes and then said that I wasn't bandwagoning

Ateateate


Claim now please.

[Hopkirk]

Ate= appeal to emotion.

You claim because you're going to be lynched. If you're on l-1 you claim because... we want to avoid lynching power roles like cop or bulletproofs.
So claim now.

[Hopkirk]

Vote Soctor

And that's 5/you're dead.
Bye.

[Hopkirk]

Vote Soctor

And that's 5/you're dead.
Bye.

This is super scummy given that discussion is still prevalent.

After a votecount... you don't notice it's a fake hammer how?

Explain why you think a fake hammer is scummy.

And thanks to the person who ruined it right away

[Hopkirk]

Vote Soctor

And that's 5/you're dead.
Bye.

This is super scummy given that discussion is still prevalent.

After a votecount... you don't notice it's a fake hammer how?

Explain why you think a fake hammer is scummy.

And thanks to the person who ruined it right away

I don't understand. What is a fake hammer supposed to accomplish?

If he gives up thinking it's real (he's new so he may) then we know for sure this is a very good lynch.
We can judge his reaction either way.
Unless someone ruins it.

[Hopkirk]

It's just the way your reading it.

Also, why would I scum claim? Is it a strategy or are you saying I did it on accident?

If you thought you were hammered (out/dead) you may have given up. It works sometimes.

[Hopkirk]

@Jarjar: Sounds like he was talking to me as he i said he may scum claim.

And you can post between hammer and flip.

Lessthan is giving me bad vibes man.

[Hopkirk]

Vibes are such a wonderful reason to lynch people, aren't they?

Nah, it annoys me when people don't give real reasons. It makes it harder to figure out when they're being genuine and means there's a lot less evidence to prove them either way later on.

Carry on.

And i try and lynch you where?
Just putting it out there in case i forget later (i should really do spreadsheets again).

[Hopkirk]

UNVOTE:

I'm just feeling really suspicious of this lynch right now.

What exactly are you suspicious about?

Never mind. I was suspicious of Hopkirk for demanding a claim so early, as well as his accusations on so many people and focus on getting a lynch. Well, now the early claim demand ties in with him trying to get thesoctor to reveal himself through fakehammer. Still, I'm a bit more hesitant to lynch thesoctor, because it seems like he has been making a bunch of newbie mistakes rather than try and get a townie lynched.

IF YOU ARE ON L-1 YOU CLAIM.
THIS IS BASIC STUFF.

[Hopkirk]

Vote Soctor

And that's 5/you're dead.
Bye.

This is super scummy given that discussion is still prevalent.

After a votecount... you don't notice it's a fake hammer how?

Explain why you think a fake hammer is scummy.

And thanks to the person who ruined it right away

I really think you're just trying to cover your ass here. If I noticed that it was fake, so did everyone else. You're trying to deceive people and in this manner, that's a bad thing.

I think a "fake hammer" is scummy because it serves no purpose and calling it a "fake hammer" means nothing to me. I know and you know and everyone else knows that you thought it was a real hammer. Now that we have taken out the fake in hammer, I'll explain why hammering in this situation is super scummy. Reason number one: information is the most valuable commodity in this game, and ending Day early ends discussion and limits the maximum amount of information the town can get. Reason number two: hammers and other decisions that make a big impact on the game (what targets a claimed cop should investigate, who should be lynched, when someone should be lynched, etc) should be decided upon as a group. You thought it was best if you did it on your own, without the group, giving the town little chance to make the decisions.

I'll reply to Bulba later tonight, but I gotta go for now.

Trying to deceive scum... it's called a reaction test...
Fake hammers do serve a purpose and are relatively common (i've done several before+seen many if you want to look at old games), one time (off site, link if wanted) a scum on l-2 didn't notice it was fake and admitted they were scum.
"I know and you know and everyone else knows that you thought it was a real hammer" Fuck you. I take extreme offense at your implication I'm a fucking moron. That is exactly what you're saying if you thing I'm too fucking stupid to not look before placing a vote when there's a vote count saying l-2 and only my vote on the last page.

Pedit: Yeah intent to hammer. There was going to be intent and wasting time wasn't necessary.

[Hopkirk]

@One: Why do you want to wait to hop on a wagon over making one yourself.

@Lessthan: Ask questions. Shout at people who don't respond. Get reads/profit.

[Hopkirk]

Fos on jarja.

[Hopkirk]

@Jarjar: When someone starts going for a policy lynch d1 alarms go off.

In mafia you calculate before any gambit. It’s a very common gambit.
The idea is that they would be expecting a real hammer (I went to all the bother of the “I’m not voting them yet as I don’t want them on l-1 yet so it would sound like I hadn’t voted them before). It could have working on him as 1.) He’s new so may not know it’s a gambit thus think it’s real (since he wouldn’t know to expect a fake hammer). If you’re not being careful then you may fall for it (the gambit I’ve seen work probably less than 5% of the time but there’s no downside really). If you spend a while preparing a gambit then you'll make sure it works. Other people not expecting it who think it's genuine will (very occasionally if done well) fall for it.

Right

Say you go to a bar. You go up order your drink, a nice regular glass of wine or something. You drink it and it tastes like crap. Want to know what’s wrong with it and the barman tells you they always put vinegar in the wine unless you ask them not to. Now if you’re a regular you’ll know how to avoid it. But if you haven’t been there before you won’t. If you’ve never been there before, never even been to a bar wine before and nobody tells you about it beforehand then you would probably drink the q. Unless you’re very careful you have a chance of falling for it.
Soc is new and probably hasn’t heard of a fake gambit before.
So there was a chance he’d fall for it.
Quite a good chance he’d drink the wine.
The wine in front of him.

I am sorry for the pun.

[Hopkirk]

I agree with bulb that lessthan doesn’t seem like he’s aiming to actually use these questions to scumhunt but rather to see what others are thinking + how to play around them.

I’ll answer these however because that forces him to do something with them, after which I can critique that to get a better read.

1) It seems quite good in that he seems scummy and has interacted. I will reread him though just in case.

2) It depends. Maybe jarjar or faries

3) Not really.

4) Not really.

5) Maybe tommorow.

6) Soctor and either jarjar or faries. See my iso.

7) One of my scumreads please.

8) We should always have one active read with reasoning at the very least. At it must be a scumread too.

9) Not day one. Maybe later.

The problem with a lurker lynch is it gets us nothing in terms of interaction tells. It’s effectively the same as a no-lynch day one- we’re back to the beginning.

@Faries: Of the 20ish games I’ve played I’ve only seen it work once before. (not used in every game ofc) But there is no harm in trying.

@Lessthan: Why would it be advantageous for scum to be throwing reads everywhere (thus making enemies) rather than focusing on 1-2 people and making friends who won’t lynch him?

[Hopkirk]

256 ressponse
1.) … You said I was scummy because I was pressuring multiple people. There is no way you could not understand my coment…

Lessthan is a greater scumread than faries and jarjar now.

[Hopkirk]

Considering he's only 4th on my list- thus i wouldn't be voting him today- that's pretty irrelevant.
What i've said before and lurker lynch stuff.
Not a lynch I'm going for, today i'll lynch less than or soctor. Preferably soctor.

Less than
1.) Respond to my q
2.) Conclusions from your list stuff

[Hopkirk]

The question i asked plainly that you quoted in 256 and haven't responded to again.

[Hopkirk]

@ Faries: Wouldn’t you say that’s better than lynching a pr by accident? They would have had to claim anyway around then (this guy already had).

@Lessthan: How is that even misinterpretable?

I said “Why would it be advantageous for scum to be throwing reads everywhere (thus making enemies) rather than focusing on 1-2 people and making friends who won’t lynch him?”

Would scum
A.) Vote+pressure lots of people thus making enemies out of most of the playerlist who would be more inclined to vote them later.
B.) Focus on voting/pressuring 2ish people and making friends with the others- going for a lynch without creating any enemies or drama.

Then consider what I’m doing (A).
Scum would not find it advantageous to do A.
So you can explain why me doing A makes me a scumread of yours.

[Hopkirk]

Would a good strategy for the cop be attacking a lot of people and seeing their reaction so he can see who to investigate? Cause if so, Im pretty sure there's a cop in this game.

Why the hell are you speculating about prs? That's ridiculously anti-town.

[Hopkirk]

Since last day...

Intent to hammer

lessthan. Lessthan please claim.

[Hopkirk]

Planing a hammer at about 10:50 gmt if nothing else.

[Hopkirk]

Good night.

[Hopkirk]

Vote soctor

[Hopkirk]

I love faries.
I don't love soctor.

[Hopkirk]

I was simply updating my reads with a townread on you whilst maintaining a previous disposition.

[Hopkirk]

My good fellow your perception is faulty. You see my post before this was in reference to your primary point rather than the second.

Post trust lists now if you want. You can't really have many scumreads.

[Hopkirk]

Why would you even think that speculating about prs in the game is a good thing for the town? Why do you want to pr hunt but say you don't want to scumhunt? The logic is anti-town.
Not going to confirm or deny i am any role for obvious reasons.

[Hopkirk]

There is no reason that voicing opinions on who could be prs/what prs they could be helps the town, it merely gives the killers ideas while not helping the town.
The way that soctor says he believes there to be a cop- and believes also he found a cop day one- suggest to me knows there is a cop and, as he clearly is not a pr himself, that knowledge is the knowledge that scum would only posses.

[Hopkirk]

Scum rolebloocker would have reason to suspect a cop.
I have read the Artemis Fowl series.
Faries is in my town circle too. Docthorr doesn't stand out much but seems more town.

[Hopkirk]

That puts us at L-1 for those not aware.

Perhaps the SEs being your top townreads is because they're SEs? :p They're more experienced and if one of them is scum, they'd be adapt at not revealing anything and making others think they are town, regardless of affiliation.

The Ic is generally more experienced than a Se so by that logic (he reads experienced as town) he should read bulb as top town not 2ns scum thus your logic is faulty.

[Hopkirk]

I have nothing to add here.
This seems to be the general view as 3/7 haven't posted in 3+ days.

[Hopkirk]

These days are way too long. Hopefully people are being prodded.

This is pretty funny considering you were due for a prod before you said it lol.

[Hopkirk]

Docthorr is sounding weird.

[Hopkirk]

410 sounds a tad too desperate to look like he's justified in the hammer he's planning/wanting to lynch to look town rather than simply for his target looking scum-this gives a feeling he doesn't fully believe in the vote he's planning.

[Hopkirk]

Good show.

Bulb how can i improve as a player?

I insped fairy as i wanted to clean a minor scumread rather than confirm my top one- soctor- who, if town, would only be a minor sacrifice.

"grabs his top hat": You are my favorite host

[Hopkirk]

I am not saying it was intentional but your wording was highly ambiguous.

[Hopkirk]

I haven't been accusing him of cheating, just saying some of his stuff could be very easy for a new player to misinterpret.