Newbie 1757 - Game Over

[Accountant]

Hi, I’m Accountant, your friendly neighbourhood Inexperience-Challenged player, or IC. This means that I have a few games under my belt, so I know the ins and outs of mafia and can show you the ropes. For those of you who hate reading long rants, or have read a similar post already, check out the link:
A Beginner’s Guide to Being Awesome At Mafia
Anyway, as the IC, it’s my job to teach you theory concepts, which means I will never lie about theory questions. Ever.
Before we start the game proper, I’d like to cover a few key concepts.

Hammering, Lynching and L-1

When the number of votes on a player exceeds half the number of players for that game, that player is lynched

instantly

and the Day ends. For example, we have 9 players. If that means the hammer is 5, so if there were to be 5 votes on someone, that player would be lynched. Do not recklessly hammer, especially early in the game, or you’ll risk accidentally lynching town members and cutting short discussion time.
The concept of L-X is used to indicate how many votes a player is to hammer. L-1 means 1 vote to hammer, L-2 means 2 votes to hammer and so forth. So for this game, if someone were to get 4 votes, they would be at L-1. When you place the vote that puts someone at L-1(for example, if someone has 3 votes and you’re putting the 4th vote down, with a hammer of 5), you should usually announce it with a statement like “He’s at L-1”, so people don’t accidentally hammer. Even more importantly, it means that mafia can’t hammer a town member and then claim ignorance the next day.
If someone is at L-1 and you want to hammer him, you should usually state “intent to hammer”, which means “I want to lynch you”. When you do this, you can also ask for a role claim. That way, if the player is a power role being mislynched, he can claim before you place the hammering vote, and thus save himself.

LyLo

LyLo is the shortened form of a phrase which means “lynch or lose”. The simplest form of LyLo is 3 players, 2 of whom are vanilla townies and the last being a mafia goon. Then, it’s easy to see that if they do not lynch, the mafia goon will kill one of them at night, stalemating the lynch the next day, and killing the last town member on Night 2 – although the mod will usually recognize this and end the game early instead of dragging it out.
When town is in LyLo, it’s important not to carelessly vote like you would on any other day, because of the potential for a mafia coordinated hammer(a “quickhammer”, happening before anyone else can react). Let’s say we have LyLo with 3 Vanilla Townies and 2 Mafia Goons. One of the vanilla townie carelessly puts his vote on another VT. This allows the two mafia goons to instantly rush in and simultaneously vote that VT, bringing his vote count to 3 in a game of 5 players, which is a hammer and loss for the town.
It’s good practice to try to recognize LyLo situations when you see them, but in Newbie games a more experienced player will usually point out that it’s LyLo and caution people from recklessly voting. Learning how to deal with LyLo is a very important part of playing mafia, and it comes up more often than you might think.

RVS

We are currently in the RVS, or Random Voting Stage. As none of us has any idea who is mafia(well, except the mafia members themselves, but they’re hardly going to admit it), we’re mostly poking around and slinging votes like hot curry at a food fight, trying to provoke reactions, start a discussion and basically probe around to try and determine player’s alignments.
As it is the

Random

Voting Stage, it’s common for players to vote for very silly reasons, such as “your avatar is ugly” or “your username has too many numbers in it”. Don’t worry, they don’t have a grudge against you or anything. It’s just part of RVS. Without RVS, it would be a lot harder to get the game moving.

Conclusion

Thank you for joining this newbie game, and I hope that all of us will have fun playing, win or lose. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me. I’m an IC, so it’s my job to be active and respond to questions from newer players. I live in Singapore, which makes my timezone GMT+8, so don’t be surprised if I answer in the middle of the night or appear to be inactive at high noon(I’m probably sleeping).

Have fun and good luck!

- Accountant

[Accountant]

VOTE: XnadrojX

You only need one X is a username. Two is way too much*.

*Unless you're Xalxe.

[Accountant]

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Vijarada, do you mind if I ask how much mafia experience you have? You're listed as a newbie on the player list, but you talk about new scum players as though they were a separate group from yourself.

[Accountant]

I don't think that could be reasonably described as "barrelling" us into anything. It would be more along the lines of allowing newbtown to make a mistake of their own accord. Why did you choose to use such a forceful word - with implications of strong-arming, even - if you thought scum was merely going to set up an opportunity and wait? This isn't just pedantry; your word choice gives us a clue into what you were thinking when you made the post, and that doesn't matchup with what you claimed to be thinking. Can you explain this discrepancy?

[Accountant]

/realises we're already slowly moving away from RVS/

Here you acknowledge town is moving out on the RVS phase and starting to get constructive things done, but:

I'm still in RVS and copper is a bad substance

This shows a reluctance to contribute to the burgeoning discussion, and wanting to move back to RVS instead.

Given that it's undoubtedly easier to scumhunt out of RVS, if you are town, wouldn't you want to encourage the game to move out of RVS? Why are you going back to RVS and avoiding the discussion about nn30's posts? What do you actually think about those posts?

VOTE: XnadrojX

[Accountant]

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

[Accountant]

I acknowledged Town is moving out of RVS

I didn't say we're already

out

of RVS and I'm just going to fit in

my]/i] RVS vote before we properly move out of RVS

The point of RVS votes is that they can get the game going. If you acknowledge that the game is already going, isn't it better to try to leap into the discussion rather than squeeze in a pointless RVS post?

[Accountant]

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.

How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

[Accountant]

Oh, definitely. I've been inconsistent as town myself. It's a perfectly natural thing to try to save face by changing your explanation to make more sense - or more charitably to be careless and muddle up trains of thought. I don't agree with Vijarada that it's necessarily super duper scummy, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

I do think that it is at least somewhat scummy and something to point out and take note of. Even if you are town, being clear on our trains of thought can only help us.

What is more concerning is your attempt to justify and cover it up.

Also, I'm interested as to why you felt the need to defend XnadrojX so badly that you even went to the trouble of calculating percentages and going through his past games. Why not let him speak for himself?

[Accountant]

XnadrojX, why do you keep saying things that others have already pointed out? In post 26 you pointed out that nn was being inconsistent, which had already been established; and in 35 you echoed what I said in 34 about being concerned about nn covering it up. Are you just trying to look productive without contributing anything?

[Accountant]

I was already typing my post and for some reason the Preview thingie that phpBB does didn't pop up when you posted for me.

Also I didn't notice that that specific bit of inconsistency was already pointed out

What, twice in a row?

[Accountant]

Is your current vote, XnadrojX, super-scummy?

Yes. If XnadrojX didn't exist then I'd definitely be voting nn30. But I can't let this guy slip by.

[Accountant]

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

How am I being inconsistent?

No, before that - do you think that an inconsistent person cannot identify inconsistency in others?

[Accountant]

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

At clarification? You admitted yourself you were being inconsistent. You mean your attempts to make your inconsistency look

not

inconsistent? Because I consider that a cover up.

[Accountant]

Here is a question for you. When you were first confronted about your inconsistency all the way in post 13, why didn't you immediately say "I apologize. I was mixing up my trains of thought and retroactively adding reasoning after seeing your post 11", rather than insisting that "there was no change of tune"?

You can think of the percentages as a reaction to you and vijarada reading so deeply into my posts.

Excusez-moi? The percentages were a direct response to me calling out XnadrojX for participating in RVS after it was over. What do they have to do with me and Vijarada analyzing your posts?

[Accountant]

nn30, why has your tone changed to extreme defensiveness/hostility when you were relatively calm before?

Compare the tone in these two posts:

You have indeed found an inconsistency.

I play, and write, quickly when I play mafia scum. As a result, my posts lean towards 'stream of consciousness' rather than 'carefully considered and reread to deduce possible implications.'

When I unvoted you in post 10 I was doing so because I didn't want scum to have the opportunity to hammer you. Just because this is what was on my mind at the time of that post doesn't mean that I can't point back to it and say 'well other scenarios exist which would also be disadvantageous to town.' Raising the possibility of a townie being the hammer is one such consideration.

The real question is whether or not inconsistencies are scummy. In and of themselves, I don't believe them to be.

If you're looking for inconsistencies, look for inconsistencies in reads. Say on one page I have someone listed as a town-lean and on another page six days later that same person is a scum-lean. If I've offered no reason as to why that read has changed, and that person hasn't done anything worth changing a read over lately, that's scummy. It implies I don't have a consistent read list and that I'm pretending to have one instead.

Finding inconsistency of stated logic from post to post is NAI. It implies that I'm human - a mistake both town and scum can and do make.

@ Accountant - Do you agree with these competing versions of inconsistency, and why?

versus

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

In the space of half an hour. What is the reasoning for this discrepancy?

[Accountant]

What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

I disagree with a lot of the things nn30 said, but this is not one of them. You've been constantly attacking him and calling him out for various inconsistencies and "lies"(your own words). Why wouldn't you vote someone who was a liar? Do you, like me, think there is someone even scummier or even more deserving of the limelight out there? Why haven't you voted them?

[Accountant]

XnadrojX is suspicious, and has been accusatory of sides.
Accountant has been more or less acting as a devil's advocate.
You, NN, have been acting too "on the nose" for a fruteria such as myself to feel comfortable...

Given this summing-up of your thoughts, wouldn't it make more sense to vote nn(who you have expressed discomfort towards) than me?

[Accountant]

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I didn't vote you for being inconsistent. I voted you because it was the first non-RVS wagon in the game, had decently solid reasoning and I wanted to keep the pressure on you as I continued questioning you. Afterwards, when it became clear XnadrojX was a better vote, I switched.

This sums up my thoughts on inconsistent reasoning:

I do think that it is at least somewhat scummy and something to point out and take note of. Even if you are town, being clear on our trains of thought can only help us.

[Accountant]

XnadrojX is suspicious, and has been accusatory of sides.
Accountant has been more or less acting as a devil's advocate.
You, NN, have been acting too "on the nose" for a fruteria such as myself to feel comfortable...

Given this summing-up of your thoughts, wouldn't it make more sense to vote nn(who you have expressed discomfort towards) than me?

Disregard this post. I thought you were voting me in 61 for some reason.

[Accountant]

I think nn30 and Vijarada are town now. Vijarada especially seems to me like a townie who is excited that he has caught someone with a smoking gun and wants to jump on them.


@nn30: You've attempted to justify a clear inconsistency in your actions. You admit this. Can you see why people would see this as an attempt to cover things up?

[Accountant]

@XnandrojX: Why would I do that? I questioned nn30 extensively because I wanted to discern his alignment. I think you're scum, so naturally anything out of your mouth in response to my pressure would be scum lies. What's the point of getting that out of you?

[Accountant]

I'm not 100% sure you're scum. I'm sufficiently convinced you're scum that I don't think it's useful trying to interact with you in any meaningful way other than to call you out whenever you do bad things and push the rest of the town to see how scummy you are.

I also see that you are trying to imply that I'm scummy because of excessive confidence 3 pages in. This is a bad accusation. Having confidence is not a scumtell, especially when you have proper reasons and reads to back up your confidence. It's definitely possible to catch scum on page 3, and the only person who has a motive to deny that is scum caught on page 3

[Accountant]

Yeah. There's absolutely no reason for a town member to do that. That, along with being eager to attack nn30 but not voting them(and not even having a better vote candidate to justify your lack of voting), and the fact that you have contributed absolutely nothing original in terms of scumhunting but wish to look productive.

[Accountant]

Post 88 was a response to post 86, just to clarify.

[Accountant]

Are you pretending post 88 doesn't exist to discredit me? Because nobody is fooled.

[Accountant]

There is no reason for a Town member to do that. That doesn't neccasarily warrent such confidence that I'm scum

That makes no sense. If there's no reason for town to do it, then it must be scum doing it. Or are you claiming third party?

[Accountant]

I don't know. I think it's more likely that you are scum than you made three scumtells in a row due your uniquely scummy "natural" playstyle. My confidence isn't even that high, relatively - I'm not calling for your head on a pike RIGHT NOW or trying to gladiate you, so I don't see why you're pretending I am.

[Accountant]

It is not A scumtell. Read post 88 again. There are three of them.

[Accountant]

@Accountant, I don't see why it's scummy to withhold a vote when I'm attacking someone. I don't see a problem with not voting him while I pressure him more for response, because a vote on him now would mean little to him while pressuring him more is more helpful

I didn't get what you meant by having explained, so I looked back and found this. The problem with this explanation is that it's a sidestep. Voting and not pressuring might be inferior to not voting and pressuring, but it's not inferior to doing both. When someone asks you why you aren't voting your scumread, "it's not too bad if I don't vote them" isn't an answer.

And yes - there is huge scum motive to do this. It means you can encourage people to lynch nn30 while not being directly involved, which might implicate you.

[Accountant]

I didn't scumread nn30 hard enough at that point of the game for me to feel the need to vote him

You straight up called him a liar, and you say he doesn't deserve votes?!

Town should be downright eager to vote a liar, not reluctant and looking for excuses as to why they're not voting.

[Accountant]

@Accountant - I think the explanation you're suggesting NN30 should have given, while great in theory, isn't how most newbies would act (or maybe most players at all?), whether scum or town. And more to the point, how would that explanation exculpate someone? Would they not then be jumped on for admitting that they 'retroactively added reasoning'? Would giving this explanation seem sincere to you? (It doesn't to me). ((Note: I'm not town reading NN30, I just want insight in to your reasoning here).

I'm not suggesting that he gave the explanation. I think that the explanation is the most obvious course of action, and I want to follow up on why he chose something this convoluted instead of the obvious action.

Also to Accountant, I didnt call him a liar, I said that he lied. There are 2 different things. And I didn't vote him as Town can also lie as part of a gambit/poor town play and other stuff. I was questioning him over the lie, rather than calling him out.

In post 53, you said that he was twisting words and misrepresenting people. Do you think that too is also part of a gambit/poor town play? Because you sure as hell looked like you were calling him out for him, and you definitely didn't vote him.

[Accountant]

Mainly I'm interested in forcing them to take a solid opinion on XX.

[Accountant]

Hello and welcome replacements! Take your time to catch up, and then share how you feel about the state of the game or individual players!

[Accountant]

Yeah, replacements can be rough. I'm waiting for them to come in so I can talk to them.

[Accountant]

No. Not voting your scum reads isn't scummy. I'm not defending Nadroj here but It's a player's play and you shouldn't say that's scummy.

If someone truly scum reads another player, what possible reason could there be for not voting them?

[Accountant]

Acutally accountant, I don't particularly agree with you when you voted Nadroj for the reason of him trying to go back to RVS. Do you seriously say that it is easy to go back to RVS when nn30 (as I think) have done scummy? Of course if someone acted scummy. suspicions will be thrown, Suspected person defends and everything continues and you still expected things to be going back to RVS?

I think that scum have more reason than town to continue making RVS votes after RVS has ended.

[Accountant]

Is there even a third party here?

Nope, I was just being sarcastic.

[Accountant]

VOTE: XnadrojX

Alright. After Re-reading through the posts I'm gonna agree with the consensus.

I got marshmallows for the bonfire.

This feels like scum half-heartedly bussing a partner he thinks is doomed.

[Accountant]

Note that fruitsman's vote put XnadrojX at L-1. Please do not hammer!

[Accountant]

I saw how Accountant looked at them. I analyzed the crap out of his face.

...when?

[Accountant]

Yeah I'm not liking Wyvernite either but not more than I dislike fruitsman or XX.

@XX: An unwillingness to interact with you means that I think that from what you've posted so far I don't see the value in interrogating you. That does not mean I'm 100% convinced you're scum, just sufficiently convinced that I do not see the point in interrogating you. What would be the benefit for me if I do?

[Accountant]

197 doesn't explain why you think fruits is trying to contribute, though.

[Accountant]

Nope. It's illegal for alts to sign up in newbie slots.

[Accountant]

No. Not voting your scum reads isn't scummy. I'm not defending Nadroj here but It's a player's play and you shouldn't say that's scummy.

If someone truly scum reads another player, what possible reason could there be for not voting them?

There's a possibility: It depends on the player. I don't judge what's your perspective by that, but in my perspective, I think that it's NAI and depends on the player. Well, not to mention, I also did that thing. I, first, pressure or ask the player first before voting the player and maybe XX is just doing that.

However, I don't believe this reason I'm typing on comparing my case and XX's case. It's just I feel it's NAI (not referring to XX)

Given that scum has strong reason to scumread a player but not vote them, I think that it's more likely that such behavior stems from a mafia role PM than from some random quirk of playstyle.

[Accountant]

@shannon: You say that you don't see anything scummy about XX, and so nn must be bussing him. How do you know it's not town!nn seeing something you don't, or interpreting XX's posts in a different way?

Accountant - You should take it easy on him for a bit and focus on others and as IC you have job and help the group to scum hunt from a different perspective. Your inability to focus on Nadroj seems suspicious to me.

This is untrue. I have spoken before about fruitsman and Wyvernite, and engaged with keyenpeydee. Furthermore, me focusing on XX makes perfect sense. I don't have any obligation to play devil's advocate with myself because I'm an IC; rather, it would be counterproductive as nobody does that and intentionally indulges in a different perapective or lets up on a scummy player just for kicks. Instead, I'm going to lead by example and show you how to scumhunt by focusing on who I find scummy, questioning them and getting them lynched.

[Accountant]

I'd recommend that you prepare a reads list, last thoughts, anything else you want to say and of course your role claim.

[Accountant]

Wyernite, go ahead. Thank you for your cooperation, XnadrojX.

[Accountant]

I dont think Xnadroj is scum. we are doing a mistake. Please stop this wagon, we have time why are we rushing?

And Accountant, I am surprised that you're encouraging day 1 one end so early when we have so time to figure things out.

Key - whats your thoughts on this?

It is my belief that town should end the day when we've collectively decided on a good lynch. No sooner, no later.

[Accountant]

If you're VT XX, I'm sorry. However, I still don't think your lynch was that bad(I mean, it's bad, but D1 lynches are almost always townies anyway and there's a lot of hidden upsides to it as well). By getting lynched now, you'll provide lots of info to the town. Also, you were an easy mislynch target for mafia to push in LyLo. Now there's less of a threat of that happening.

[Accountant]

The crux of it is that I think XX is going to be lynched regardless, I think he *should* be lynched regardless, and I don't think that we can obtain significant information in the extra time we gain by delaying the lynch. In fact, I think it makes it easier to derail the wagon, create fatigue and apathy in town through a long day that leads to the same thing anyway, and allows scum to muddy the associative waters to make it harder to draw conclusions off XX's flip.

[Accountant]

@Accountant you've misread me (or maybe I miswrote?); I think NN30 is scum and XnadrojX is town. The only reason I could see XnadrojX as scum is if NN was bussing him, and it's gone way, way past the point where that's plausible. I want NN30 to go tomorrow.

Why is nn30 scum? Summarize your case against him?

[Accountant]

Note that XX is already hammered. Nothing can stop him dying now.

[Accountant]

If you're town, that's a good attitude to have. You never know - maybe your last words will help us catch scum and you'll get your revenge from the grave.

[Accountant]

Accountant - You better have a valid explanation on why you didn't choose to look other cases and only focused on Xnadrojx?

XnadrojX was the scummiest. It's not like I didn't look at other cases, I just focused on the scummiest one most. Now, why were you so certain XX was town?

[Accountant]

fruitsman, for most of the game, you've been uncertain about reads. What makes you suddenly so certain nn30 is scum?

[Accountant]

Being IC, it is your duty push players to see and focus on the other options to scum hunt but you only focused the entire game to push XX wagon.

Can you please show me where it says the IC has a duty to present other options to the players for no reason, evem if they think those other options aren't scum?

Now, suppose it was indeed an IC duty to do so. Do you think I would intentionally be a bad IC if I drew scum?

[Accountant]

@Vijarada: Thoughts on ArcAngel?

I'd like a Wyvernite or fruitsman vote today, but I am waiting for them to come back on and talk before I make up my mind.

[Accountant]

the IC's aligned to town are usually focus on everyone and tries to give more time on day1 and you didn't do that Xnandarj. He is just new, You could have let him take a breathe and come back with better way to defend himself and the mean while you could have really tried to divert this town to if there is anything else that required the attention.

Unfortunately, that's not how I play games. If I think someone needs to go, they go. All the rest stops in the world won't take away the simple fact that XX is scummy, and I don't think any mercy should be offered to scum.

[Accountant]

I don't know If i wasn't being clear. I was not happy to see the D1 ending so quickly. I believed that Accountant had an ability to extended day if he had a right motive. I am suspecting his motives here.

I'll repeat my statement, and do know I am giving you advice to the true best of my ability and knowledge. Town should end the day when they have collectively decided on a lynch target, and not a moment sooner or later. Prematurely ending the day is bad. Needlessly lengthening the day is also bad; it allows apathy to creep in, reasoning to become muddied and scum to slip out of the noose.

As an IC, it's my job to set an example for other players and show them how to play good mafia. A key part of playing good mafia is to focus on scum and get them lynched. Therefore, I focused on XX and got him lynched. Isn't this natural for any town IC to do?

[Accountant]

@Accountant - why do you want a Wyvernite lynch today?

If we argue that fruitsman should be lynched for not contributing much except fruit seller jokes, then Wyvernite should go as well - he's contributed even less than fruitsman, and with an odd cockiness - perhaps because he knows the player's alignment already.

[Accountant]

I have a townread on nn. Just because I'm interrogating someone doesn't mean I think they're scum; rather, it means I'm trying to decide if they're scum or not.

Wyvernite's slot voting fruits gives me confidence they aren't a scum team, and I think at least one of them is scum.

[Accountant]

VOTE: ScumDeer

No stain on you, Deer. You just had the misfortune of replacing into a scum slot.

PEdit: I think keyen, nn and Vijarada are all town, which means that there must mathematically be at least one scum in you and fruits.

[Accountant]

Welp

[Accountant]

Really irritated that I got mislynched on the worst case in the history of MS, but eh.