Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[omnino]

I'll read through these posts tonight in between completing the rear-end of my portfolio website.

Cheers Aurorus.

I tend to be pretty scatter gun in my suspicions, only really narrowing them down towards the last week [will need to hurry that up for tonight, I suppose lol].

[omnino]

Welcome, omnino.
I guess my predictions about Loaka returning were incorrect.

Omnino, when you catch up and find some time,
could you give us your comment on Aurorus' analysis of your predecessor in his post #201?
Since you know his alignment now.

First off, a hearty ROFL at the lengthy ISO analysis of what Loaka contributed. Before I'd checked my role or realised who I was replacing I'd noted two things about him.

-Quiet [abrupt, short].
-Not reading [doesn't understand].

---

I haven't completely read everything yet, I'd managed to skim through to page 8 last night, not going deep in to the wall-o-texts to be honest as I was heading out not long after getting in from work last night. I'm in at work and hopefully it'll be quiet enough to me to make sure I haven't missed a sausage or two. Meanwhile, some notes from what i've got so far;

@2k3
-You appeared non committal early in the game.
-Suspicion of Avox was [IMO] mildly daft.
-Honour unvote moment reeked of scum trying to buddy up.
-at post 99 you seemed like you were trying to fight off a claim, at this stage you had one vote on you [going by AV's table], why even bother to mention claiming?
-Your 'I read these posts but didn't understand them, woah.' post seems to me like active-inactivity, or active lurking, more commonly.

@Akira
-Early you say you believe Mafia are prudent with accusations.
-You later find Avox's tirade on 2k3 [not prudent actions] suspicious. Is this a sign that you may not have been too sure about that prudent line?
-I get that there's no rush, technically' but you've been in this game from the start, and you currently have no vote placed... fix it, please.

I will post again later today with a bit more as I do ISO's, but that's what I have just now.

[omnino]

Woops, HR fail .

[omnino]

Going through ISO's, and have a

FoS

for Zauper.

Seems your interrogating picked up for about 2 posts after it was mentioned you'd spent more time nodding in agreement than pointing fingers; then went back to simple nods and non-committal questions. Bear in mind it's not the style of play that I find suspicious, but the reaction to change it for a short time before regressing that catches my eye.

Would also like to say that I would currently support a lynch for 2k3, Akira and Zauper. I reckon the case on 2k3 is certainly the strongest, but the mention of awkward social interaction early in the game could account for some of the flaws in his play-style [not all, there are some definite tells in his play].

For now I'm going to

Vote: Akira

, though. As I want Akira to tell me why his belief that Mafia would be prudent in their accusations changed in such a short space of time early on in the game. Vote will remain until question is answered or a better candidate is in need of hammering near the DL.

[omnino]

Just have to add that the comment in my opening post about Akira not voting... I'll retract that. My mistake, Aki.

[omnino]

@ Omnino – I’m not going to accuse you of avoiding answering my questions quite this early (I’m sure you’ve got loads to read), but I did ask you about your experience. From the few posts you’ve made you appear to know what you’re talking about. x

Sorry Bazz, haven't quite come to your ISO yet.

My experience on this site is two games, one played out to a town win [I was NK'd as VT] and one still running [NK'd as town Cop]. Have played Mafia in other forums, but I'd say at most I have about 12 games under my belt, but I find MS to be completely different in pace, strategy and the level of player.

[omnino]

Unvote

.

Thanks for the retort, Akira. I would like to state that Akira is no longer on my preferred lynch list. I would now only support a lynch for Akira if it was going to stop a lynchless day.

Is Zauper on V/LA or is this just a tactic to try and let the two votes on him slide in to obscurity through lurkiness? Can't find a mention of it in his ISO. He's getting plenty of mentions, but not made an appearance since the 17th...

Mod: any news on Zauper?

Not sure about voting him at the moment as he could find himself replaced soon anyway.

[omnino]

From this, I had the suspicion that he is trying too hard to align himself with others, and after re-reading his posts, found that much of what he says (including BWing 2k3) shows this same desire to align with town players.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

I suppose that's reasonable.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

@Akira: That's a valid point.

This recurring desire to show that he supports others views, I believe, is a scum-tell; he is worried about alienating himself and wants to look as if he supports the majority.

FoS: Zauper

(I will wait for his response before deciding whether to vote)

Is the first solid note of his agreeing rather than contributing, and the next post after it is Post 142 from Zauper which is the longest post he contributes until this stage, all reacting to ooBAZZoo, careful not to agree with anyone else I guess. Then there's Post 162 which is pretty tame for investigation, just some regurgitated observations and mild questions. 164 is all about reacting again to AV accusing him of mimicking him and giving his read on ooBAZZoo. There are only 4 posts after that, one which might be considered semi-contribution probing about Akira reads; then its back to active lurking, and since then complete lurking.

Looking at the dates it's pretty much the 15th of July that he makes an effort; then he recedes away. I'd put forward the idea that one day was enough of an effort for him to actually pretend to contribute - and since then he's just kept away in the hope of lurking through the game.

Getting a bit tired of looking for a prod or a replacement and we're very short of time...

Vote:Zauper

.

[omnino]

Well, first off - do you think L-2 was getting him out from under the wood work? Nah? I agree.

Secondly, I find his play to date pretty scummy, and his absence under suspicion even worse, so my vote should be on him anyway. I had been putting it off waiting for Hayl to give news of a prod. replacement, modkill... whatever, but this does not seem forthcoming.

In short, it's about as fruitful as L-2 so far, in that he's not turned up, but if he does turn up because it's L-1, then yeah, it will be a fruitful vote.

[omnino]

Well, first off - do you think L-2 was getting him out from under the wood work? Nah? I agree.

This quote implies that you believe zauper will come back when he sees he's at L-1. Although the mod hadn't given information about prods at the time, zauper's last post in the thread was made almost a week ago. I can see no indication whatsoever that he'll come back because of your L-1 vote. If anything is going to work, it has to be a prod, but most likely he'll simply be replaced.

If

applied pressure is not having the desired effect

and

there is more pressure left to apply,

then

apply it.

If it didn't have the desired effect, then we're not exactly losing anything by applying the extra pressure. If someone jumps in with a lynch before the end of the day without any news on Zauper, they are Suspect No. 1 for Day 2 [well, my Suspect No. 1].

If Zauper doesn't come back, then we will have to build another hanging frame around someone else.

[omnino]

First off, it's

than

, not then.

Secondly; define useful? Had someone taken the bait and slammed an opportunistic hammer on Zauper whilst the L-1 was in play, we'd have a good place to start Day 2's investigations with. In the same vein the people who have expressed the desire to hammer but held off in favour of a replacement have gained trust in the sense that this is very town-like behavior.

Do not discard every post you do not see the sense in as useless, because some times you might be skirting your way through someone plans.

[omnino]

Had someone taken the bait, as you call it, we would almost certainly have had a dead pro-town player, without any direct indication that the player placing the hammer was scum. I've seen inattentive pro-town players place the hammer accidentally way too often for that strategy to work.

You're so certain of your read on Zauper [I'll remind you that's 15 posts of read] that you say 'would have almost certainly lost a pro-town player'?

No way anyone is that certain of their read after 15 posts, not unless 10 of them are breadcrumbing a role, which he wasn't.

I can understand you doubting the case, as there are never strong cases on day one, but to pretty much give Zauper [and theplayer, by assosiation] a green light like that is very counter productive, in my opinion, even borderline scummy*.

*Based on the fact that only Scum and Cops can be assured of alignments, and we're still at a stage where cops have no info outside of the visible game, leaving only scum.

[omnino]

ISO – MichelSableheart

ISO #1

Comes off quite highbrow. Disinclined to enter RVS, advises against it, encourages against it too. Was okay with starting discussions before all had confirmed.

Suspects AV is trying to stall conversation. Ignored Valk's similar call.
-Interesting because he is derailing RVS, which leads to discussion either deliberately or by accident, hence the scum point.

Quiz' Akira on RV.
-Quizzing people on their random votes, when they are quite clearly not based on anything whatsoever, is ridiculous, trying to put Akira on an early defensive, perhaps trying to establish himself as an early town leader.

ISO #2

Attacking 'weak votes' already, makes a point of parading the idea of 'real arguments'.
-There's no such thing as 'real arguments' on Page 2, this is like criticising the lack of snow and blaming someone for it in Barbados... in the height of Summer.

Admits the stalling converse was a strong allegation.
-Sticking to his convictions at least.

Claims he read Valk's post differently.
-Done a whole lot of offensive on everyone, I'm not buying that he passed up the opportunity to badger a newb. Potential scumpair number 1 - Valk + MichelSableheart.

Scum will Active Lurk statement
-Wasteful statement, filler if you like.

Annoyed that 'we are not discussing who is mafia yet'.
-On Page 1. Practically impossible, seriously scummy play.

Serious Vote on AV, case of stifling converse and game theory discussion.
-First vote is just ridiculous. He's aiming for serious play off the bat and he's placed a vote based out of an initial read; which could have been said of himself in a way along with a bit of theory discussion. Given that we are still on Page 2, what else is he likely to discuss?

"I have to admit though that my grasp of the English language isn't good enough to spot such subtle differences."

ISO #3

Refusing to stick to Guybrushes request that we do not 'chainsaw defend' other players, makes no apologies for this either.
-Horribly scummy. Defending other players, stopping them falling in to traps... you are not a lawyer on the clock and Mafia is not a game about protecting players from investigation. You can always say your piece after the initial reaction of the questioned player. Refusing to abide by this request would only be useful for someone looking to 'buddy up' to townies.

ISO #4

Un-votes after some scumhunting from AV

Questions Valk about reaction after he questioned AV to begin with.
Interesting that he should be interrogating Valk about coming to another players defence when he was seeking dispensation for this only in his last post.

"prefer to get discussion started with actual accusations, but early in the game those are difficult to come by because there isn't much to go on."
-This after displaying frustration that no-one was making 'real arguments' on Page 2. Contradict-much?

ISO #5

"You also haven't given me a good reason for your suspicions of Aurorus. As far as I can determine, you believe he is scum because he is voting you?"
-Two posts ago you had voted him for reasons just as frivolous.

Slightly harsh reaction to the lurker accusation comes off as more angry about it than shocked at the accusation. Also makes a point of mentioning his 'one post a day' schedule, and how his own life is private.

ISO # 6

Suspects 2k3 for actively suspecting those that suspect him. Makes 2k3 his top suspect, vocally, but does not vote.
-So AV was worth a vote for a little bit of theory discussion and a reluctance to start the game before everyone turns up, but your top suspect isn't worth a vote for a series of dodgy accusations?

ISO #7

"Vote: Valkyrie

Sure, rereading can take a while, but it won't take you 12 hours. If you're not going to do a reread today, at least given an estimation on when your reread will be done."
-Reference to ISO #5, one post a day, private life his own blah-blah-blah, but the same rules [seems to be a re-occurring theme] do not apply to others as Michel.

"How awfully convenient that someone else gave 2003 a good reason to keep his vote on Zauper when the original "defending Aurorus" reason was no longer maintainable."
-Again, back at the beginning, you claimed you would be ignoring GuyBrushes request to leave people to defend themselves, but this doesn't appear to be what you prefer when it's your suspect. Massively hypocritical.

Defends Zauper's agreement.
-Not scum points,

but

when you have claimed early in the game that your grasp of english is not good enough to grasp subtleties, can you honestly claim to understand Zauper's posts any better than anyone else in the game?

ISO #8

Claims a gut read of scum on Valk, so no actual evidence or argument there, just lurking and gut.
-Pretty sure you were against this sort of thing early on.

"I haven't had the time to check this accusation yet, so I can't say to what extend this is true."
-Interesting thing to say after claiming to have read Zauper in ISO only one post back. Either you skimmed his ISO, in which case you couldn't have commented on the case against him, or you didn't read it at all, and you were trying to do as I predicted in ISO #3 which is trying to defend townies with the aim of buddying up to them.

ISO # 9

Still stating Valk is a top suspect, still not voting for him, pressure is pretty weak.
-Typical distancing tactic.

ISO #10

"I've said this before: Loaka feels more inactive then lurking to me. And inactivity is in my experience a null-tell, even though it's mightily annoying."
-So would scum be best advised to just consistently stay quiet and claim they have no time for playing to get by you? This is an assumption based on all scum play the same, and all scum lurk the same. Dismissing all inactivity as not lurking is counter productive, IMO.

"I questioned Valkyrie about it first, because I wanted to hear her explanation. That question was made in post #98, and still isn't answered. The fact that you are now (partially) answering for her doesn't really make me happy."
-Really... this again? Refer to ISO #3. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, sit down and take it, Michel.

ISO #12

Willing to support a lynch on Valkyrie.
-But not willing to vote.

"I am NOT willing to support a zauper lynch. There are better cases out there then the case against him, and in my memory, some players were joining his bandwagon far too opportunistically."
-Noted.

ISO #14

Looking for answers from Seth about Valk's concerns...
-Just... what? I hope you can mind read, Seth.

ISO #15

"@BAZZ, regarding my Akira suspicions in #222: I can't really put my finger on why I suspect Akira. My suspicions on him aren't very strong. It's mainly a general feeling of discomfort with his actions, in particular the way he voted Zauper when going V/LA."
-Fairly weak reasoning of suspicion from the guy that claimed he was waiting for real arguments and accusations in ISO #2

ISO #16

"It is not fear that scum is pushing for the easy mislynch. It is a strong belief that scum is pushing for the mislynch. Judging from the behaviour of the other players, I conclude that zauper is town. There's no need for a reread. Besides, my opinion based on zauper’s posts has already been given."
-15 posts is all it takes for Sableheart to hand out a town card. Largely unhelpful in nature, non-committal in their majority and with a lot of head nodding. Not buying it.

"Given his reaction, I believe Seth's "I may as well self vote" was an exaggeration (sp?) to illustrate how impossible he believes defending against accusations against Valkyrie is for him."
-What if it's just a throwaway comment to try and take people off his bandwagon?

ISO #17 & 18

This was our converse about the potential for a hammer and it’s advantages for town; which can be summed up with;

Had someone taken the bait, as you call it, we would almost certainly have had a dead pro-town player, without any direct indication that the player placing the hammer was scum. I've seen inattentive pro-town players place the hammer accidentally way too often for that strategy to work.

You're so certain of your read on Zauper [I'll remind you that's 15 posts of read] that you say 'would have almost certainly lost a pro-town player'?

No way anyone is that certain of their read after 15 posts, not unless 10 of them are bread crumbing a role, which he wasn't.

I can understand you doubting the case, as there are never strong cases on day one, but to pretty much give Zauper [and theplayer, by association] a green light like that is very counter productive, in my opinion, even borderline scummy*.

*Based on the fact that only Scum and Cops can be assured of alignments, and we're still at a stage where cops have no info outside of the visible game, leaving only scum.

Conclusion.

I wasn’t actually suspicious of you until I started doing this ISO. There are a lot of contradictions in your play, a lot of hypocrisy and I am very un-settled about you handing a town card to Zauper/ThePerson on the basis of 15 posts!

unvote

FOS: MichelSableheart

Will be ISOing others before the deadline before I vote, however unless I see something very scummy in those ISO’s, I will be voting for Sableheart.

[omnino]

Regarding lurking: I personally make a difference between active lurking (posting enough to not be replaced, while posting little to no content) and inactivity (a failure to post at all, likely to lead to replacement). The usage of the term "lurking" for what essentially is inactivity creates needless confusion. In my experience, town players and scumplayers alike can become inactive, but there is slightly more incentive for scum to active lurk then there is for town.

Please hold for a wonderful example of Active Lurking.

Still here, don't have the time to read though. Expect content tonight or tomorrow.

/End.

[omnino]

@omnino
I find your suspicions vague (except on Michel), so I hope you could clarify.

(1) You stated you suspect Akira (#223 + #235), but seemed happy with his answer (#263) and therefore unvoted. Yet you stated in the same post (#263) that you would support his lynch (to avoid lynchless day). How come if you were happy with his answer?

(2) And then your view on zauper. First you gave him FoS. In #300 you say your vote is where it should be (he's your top suspect).
But in #310 you say "If Zauper doesn't come back, then we will have to build another hanging frame around someone else.".
Are you saying that now that zauper is gone, all should be forgiven?
And you really do seem to move on easy ("I will be voting for Sableheart" #329), meaning you won't support a zauper lynch anymore.
So, what is your position on zauper\theperson? Do you think he's scum and would you support his lynch?

(3) And regarding your Michel's analysis, I found it a bit too black-n-white (similar to seth's in that sense) which made you miss Michel's vote on Valk. However, you made some good points with which I agree - mostly parts about being too rushed by saying pro-town things too soon ("let's do some scumhunting now"; "we want real arguments, people").
Let me ask you this - do you believe you could get enough support to get Michel lynched today?

(1) I don't want a lynchless day. It's an missed opportunity to catch scum and only scum [IMO] would support a lynchless day. Therefore I would theoretically support any lynch towards the deadline if it meant we got a lynch.

(2) The role? No. But I see no point in badgering a replacement from the moment they join by having them on L-1 and forcing a claim out of them. Especially this game with it's wall-o-texts and strange reads.
If I don't see anything else in ISO's [which I'm doing in between work hours, although not had a lot of time for them tbh] I will be voting Sableheart, because I find his ISO to be too full of inconsistencies and littered with hypocrisy.
If it's to avoid a no-lynch, I'll vote for him and if no-one else agrees with me about the scummy holes in Michel's game; then I may have to save that case for a later date when there's even more holes and my vote will land back where it was.

(3) I think it would be hard as we near the deadline - hence my belief that the case may have to wait until Day 2. It will be a case I will pursue though.

---

Was that wall of text really necessary? It feels like you are wasting my time, not only reading this, but also having to reply in detail.

-Is it just you that gets to post Wall-o-texts? I had a lot of valid points to bring up about your game, and I did so in a structured analysis of your ISO. It split my points up in to posts you had made so that nothing was confusing or hard to find. I fail to see what your problem is.

Why do you believe that scum is more likely to post self-contradictions then town is? If you're arguing I'm scum for contradicting myself, that's something that should be in your post.

-*COUGH!* it's

THAN

. And yes, scum is more likely to post inconsistencies because scum is making it up as they go along - therefore they may struggle to stick to the same lies/falsehoods twice. If your game-play is inconsistent, and the opinions you herald are contradicting, it seems to me that you are not seeing the game from the same side all the time, which would be symptomatic of scum trying to see things as a townie but struggling to keep his mind in the game.

Regarding me handing a towncard to Zauper: see my reply to post #318, later in this post.

You are hugely underestimating the amount of information that can be gained from looking at other players opinions of someone, even on day 1. I have said this before, and I'll say this again: the case against zauper didn't convince me, but my townread on Zauper is the result of the way other players acted towards him, not of anything HE posted. Just take a look at the bandwagon against him:

• 2003 was the first player to attack Zauper, FoSing and later voting him for what seemed to be OMGUS reasons. He later followed BAZZ' reasons to keep his vote on Zauper. This is unlikely to come from a scumbuddy of Zauper, because there wasn't enough pressure around to warrant bussing. OTOH, if 2003 is scum with someone else, Zauper is a relatively safe place for his vote.
  
• ooBAZZoo was the first player to post the case of agreeing too much against Zauper. This makes it unlikely that the two of them are scumbuddies, IMO. Zauper wasn't under significant pressure, nor was he playing badly, so there was no reason whatsoever for BAZZ to start a case against Zauper if they're scumbuddies.
  
• Aurorus added to the pressure in post #153. This post to me seems like it could be potentially distancing. It's adding to a case that already has some momentum, without the pressure having any immediate consequences. The pressure he places is a bit strong for distancing, especially later on, and I haven't seen too much reason to be suspicious of Aurorus, so this isn't a likely scenario.
  
• Akira doesn't comment on Zauper for quite a while, and when he does in post #183, he isn't very convincing. He's basically following the reasoning of everyone else, and only does so when he's asked directly. Based on this weak reasoning, he votes Zauper in #188, when he announces V/LA. It is possible that this is scumbuddies distancing. However, if Akira is scum, it's far more likely that he places this vote in the hope of being part of an easy lynch without being questioned on it too much (he explicitly asks everyone not to ask him questions till he is back, perhaps hoping his vote is forgotten?).
  
• Omnino places a FoS on zauper when the majority's suspicion is on him, despite Guybrush and me defending zauper. Later on, he puts him at L-1 when zauper is likely to be replaced. If Omnino was zauper's scumbuddy, he would likely have agreed with Guybrush and me as more experienced players and defended zauper. Furthermore, he would have used zaupers inactivity as a reason to not place his vote there. OTOH, if Omnino is scum and zauper isn't, the L-1 vote works very well as an attempt to get a mislynch which can be blamed on someone else, and even if that doesn't work, it's a safe place for his vote.
  
• Seth's #271 is horrible. It contains extremely poor reasoning, and seems to be basically pushing for the easy mislynch. Very unlikely to come from scumbuddies, very likely to come from Seth scum if zauper's town.
  
• Guybrush flat out defended Zauper. Potential scumbuddy, although I'm not sure scum would be that obvious about it.

-Potentially, possibly, maybe, almost, just about, not quite, unlikely, relatively, likely to be, getting there, not nearly... So not really big on Real Links, Real Accusations, eh?

So as I'd said before, Zauper made 15 posts - which is what your read of Zauper is based on. That's the

SOLID, ZAUPER LINKED

material you have. Everything else is a house of cards in the eye of a storm. But your words do not indicate the utter frailty of this read [in the sense that it is based around more ifs and buts than Creationism] make it sound a lot stronger...

"I conclude that zauper is town. There's no need for a reread."
"Had someone taken the bait, as you call it, we would almost certainly have had a dead pro-town player, without any direct indication that the player placing the hammer was scum."

I would let the following slide;

-I reckon Zauper is likely town, but can't be sure.
-I have a gut feeling Zauper is town, but that's hardly conclusive.
-Had someone taken the bait, we might have lost a townie.

But your words are definite, and since you have explained why - I am even more angered by the arrogance in which you seem to take your flimsy reads as gospel. Imagine if you will, that I am a lawyer, in court, defending a client, and I stand up and proclaim that I am certain my client is Innocent because;

I find three of the people accusing him to be a little bit dodgy, and when I find someone dodgy, they must be lying - therefore; innocent.

Have you tried to actually understand what I'm saying? Most of the "contradictions" you found simply come from you missing the point of my posts. I'll expend on this later in this post.

-Like your grasp of English being too poor to spot subtleties, but you being able to give a better understanding of Zaupers nods-in-agreement than anyone else? Or you refusing to let people answer for themselves, and saying there's no need to stick to it, then getting quite annoyed and verbal about it when someone does the same to one of your suspects/questions? Like you desperate for REAL ACCUSATIONS to start with then admitting they don't really exist as early as you wanted them and whilst voting on very flimsy reasoning for AV? Voting for Valk on gut reads, not fitting with your 'Questions, Accusations, Cases!' ethos... these are real and vivid contradictions, whether you want to admit it or not. The point of your posts is irrelevant to the case in point; which is that what you appear to be holding important at one stage of the game and campaigning for, does not fit what you are doing the same for only a few posts later. I couldn't give a monkeys if you say they don't count as contradictions because you posted them a few days apart at different stages of the game, your opinions and thoughts seem to directly contradict because they are flailing wildly around the spectrum - thus; contradiction.

Have you looked at the context of my posts? Surely you have noticed that there are almost 2 full pages between my ISO #3 and #5?

-or rather; 'Surely you have noticed that it took me two full pages to disagree with myself.'

I can't claim to understand Zauper's posts better then anyone else, but I can give my opinion on what I'm seeing.

-But you do admit that you fail to grasp the subtleties of the English language, and therefor could be missing things or misinterpreting them.

Regarding reading Zauper's ISO: I read his ISO to check the argument that Zauper agreed with others more then usual. I paid particular attention to the sections of his ISO that were relevant for that argument, and skimmed over the rest.

-So you agree that he did a fair amount of passive-agreeing?
[/list]

[omnino]

-So you agree that he did a fair amount of passive-agreeing?

Where are you getting that from?

A la...

Regarding reading Zauper's ISO: I read his ISO to check the argument that Zauper agreed with others more then usual. I paid particular attention to the sections of his ISO that were relevant for that argument, and skimmed over the rest.

4 posts of 15 are blatant passive agreement in Zauper's ISO. So if you read them you read the 30%-odd of his posts that were nothing but agreeing. Would you not say that 30% of someone's post total is an awful lot to surrender to simply nodding your head?

[omnino]

AV - to clear up I would hammer either of the two suspects Preferably theperson based on Zaupers previous play if I had to picky a favoured lynch.

[omnino]

@Michel.

Would you not say that 30% of someone's post total is an awful lot to surrender to simply nodding your head?

[omnino]

Bugger.

I'll need to re-evaluate my reads now; was clearly not on the right trak with Sableheart. Only positive from the results is that whatever power role this town has is still out there doing it's thing .

[omnino]

Am I reading too much into you being so sure that there's one power role? Only way to know that is for there to be a double-goon scumteam. Early slip here?

Suppose it could look like tha, actually. More likely it's the fact I forgot more than one power role can happen in these newb games .

What are people's opinions on theorising about the NK choices made by the mafia? Productive for town? Helpful to scum?

Leaves me without my top suspect, to be honest. Not entirely happy about it. One plus point [as I mentioned] is that Scum never hit a power role, any townie death is helpful to scum as it draws them closer to victory. So...

Plus:-
Power role

intact.
Higher chance of hitting scum on Lynch 2.

Minus:-
Closer to defeat.
Takes many people back to square one in terms of investigation.
Loss of an analytical player.

- Omnino is a tough one because he didn't seem convinced that seth was the best lynch, but that means that if he had hammered he would have not had to take responsibility for the mislynch ("I only hammered to avoid no lynch").

A fair point about the Lynch issue. You could say that with that excuse available, I would've been foolish not to hammer and get myself on the BW [as scum].

- 2k3's preference for the Valk/Seth lynch was all over the place during the latter half of D1 - but he never voted for him. He suggested lynching him for inactivity, then said it was a throwaway comment to get conversation going, then he said he didn't want to lynch him, then he said he did want to...

Looks fairly typical behavior for uncertain town, when put down like that. 2k3 comes off as the kind of player I'd be expecting that from; but we could never be certain about that.

- theperson also didn't hammer despite having suspicions. With the NK, though, I'm trying to figure out if he was a cautious townie or a cautious scum, and am leaning to the former.

If you're looking to pick a scum candidate out of us three, I'd pick theperson. 2k3 comes off as more confused, but being suspiscious and unwilling to lynch is IMO worthy of closer attention than 2k3's confusion.

[omnino]

@Omnino: So, wait, how do you know the setup when Hayl didn't actually say what setup we were using? This just seems way too suspicious.

Put simply, I don't.

[omnino]

@omnino: How do you know there IS a power role? What about the setup:

1 Mafia roleblocker, 1 Mafia goon, 7 vanilla townies?

Also,

If you're looking to pick a scum candidate out of us three, I'd pick theperson. 2k3 comes off as more confused, but being suspicious and unwilling to lynch is IMO worthy of closer attention than 2k3's confusion.

Possible omnino-2k3 scumteam? 2k3 was also suspicious and unwilling to lynch, but he was also inconsistent. Can you explain where you got that he seemed "confused"? I was getting more of an inconsistency feel from him.

In my first game as mafia, I did basically the same thing: I said I thought my scumbuddy was noob town. It could be just that omnino suspects me more, but it's the way he said it that made me suspicious.

So we're actually suspecting me by

YOUR

meta? Nice! I like that logic. I suspect you because I farted this morning and it didn't smell bad - suspicious, non? Samey-same.

I've never played a game with a base full of VT's, and if I had I would have remembered how insanely unfair and nigh on unwinnable it would be. Also you're suspecting me on the basis of 'knowing' about power roles. Scum wouldn't know about that, they'd only know about themselves - so really this case [as much as my mentioning one power role looks weird] is about as water tight as a buggered sieve

Also;

@AV: If I had hammered a few days before deadline, wouldn't I basically be a guaranteed lynch the next day? I was a close #2 suspect, hammering just makes me look like desperate scum. If it came down to deadline, I would have been happy to vote him, but as I wasn't certain that he was scum, I didn't want to risk 2 mislynches. Are you saying you wouldn't find the hammer suspicious if it had happened?

Massive

FOS

. You didn’t want to hammer on your top suspect because you were worried you’d be top suspect on the second day? Only reason for this would be if you believed your top suspect to be a townie, and if you believed that – why suspect him in the first place?

Possible omnino-2k3 scumteam?

I wondered this as well. Normally I'd say it's unlikely that there'd be no scum whatsoever on the mislynch, but with the explosion of scumminess that was seth, it's not impossible.

.

Am I reading too much into you being so sure that there's one power role? Only way to know that is for there to be a double-goon scumteam. Early slip here?

Suppose it could look like that, actually. More likely it's the fact I forgot more than one power role can happen in these newb games .

And I suppose we have to take your word for it. This is one of those things that isn't enough to warrant a solid suspicion because there's not really any ways to defend against it except saying "trust me" or "I'm telling the truth", but I'll be keeping it in mind in the future.

ThePerson might buy this, but I don't think you do, you’ve been pretty logical so far AV. Fair enough to question my post where I mentioned power role

being safe but to actually suspect that I am scum with knowledge of what power roles are active in the game, and start building teams off of that? Utter tripe.

Scum don’t know jack about power roles until they hit them.

What are people's opinions on theorising about the NK choices made by the mafia? Productive for town? Helpful to scum?

Leaves me without my top suspect, to be honest. Not entirely happy about it. One plus point [as I mentioned] is that Scum never hit a power role, any townie death is helpful to scum as it draws them closer to victory.

As a little sidenote, I wasn't really asking what people thought of the NK, I was asking what people thought about talking about the NK.

Woops. Misread. Don't think it hurts, tbh and not discussing the nightkill would be foolish since it is one of only two definite answers we have in the game.

- 2k3's preference for the Valk/Seth lynch was all over the place during the latter half of D1 - but he never voted for him. He suggested lynching him for inactivity, then said it was a throwaway comment to get conversation going, then he said he didn't want to lynch him, then he said he did want to...

Looks fairly typical behavior for uncertain town, when put down like that. 2k3 comes off as the kind of player I'd be expecting that from; but we could never be certain about that.

Does your assessment cover the entirety of his play?

No, actually. It covers your general round up – I’ll get a round up on 2k3’s general play on an ISO at some point either today or tomorrow.

[omnino]

That was more of a take on your analysis than my take on 2k3, tbh.

As for the Scum roles informing on Power roles, I'll be pleading ignorance on that one, although it rings a bell now it's been mentioend, it was completely drawing a blank earlier.