Newbie 1081: Showdown in Newbtown (Game Over, Mafia win)

[startransmission]

Wow. This game has hit a wall. No activity whatsoever. Good for scum, bad for town.

I have some questions to ask tomorrow. Fatso's one to alnkpa above is a good start.

[Zdenek]

Out of the two, I would say if Lynchking doesn't post more soon I would lynch them but I wouldn't mind a BS lynch

Why? Even thought they've each posted little, I would say that BS is scummier.

Wow. This game has hit a wall. No activity whatsoever. Good for scum, bad for town.

I have some questions to ask tomorrow. Fatso's one to alnkpa above is a good start.

And your going to solve this problem by not asking your questions?

[h3ll0]

I'm still not sold on a lurker lynch at this point of time, seeing that we still got 11 more days to the deadline (which could be extended). Sitting around and agreeing to the policy lynch does not help progress the game either.

Okay, thanks, for some reason I thought I was going to be hated for not being able to scum hunt.

Being bad at scumhunting does not excuse you from doing it though.

[Bulvious]

I'm not entirely sure anyone has been doing much scum-hunting for some time, though. It's mostly been "Let's lurker lynch" - all fine and good, but that's something for the future.

It appears a lot of people are good for a Banana wagon - but what that COULD mean is yielding no information what-so-ever on the lynch. We kill her, high chance is, she'll flip town, and because everyone was pretty mutual about it, it would hardly mean anything other than that deadspace is gone. I agreed to the policy, but that's in eleven days. For now...

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Alnpka is actively lurking - to me, this is significantly worse than someone who is likely to be replaced.

He has provided no original content. The most he's done is accuse Fatso of backing down and being sensetive - accusations that were parroted from other players in this game. He appears to merely be agreeing with people - a good move for scum. He's not hunting at all either, let us not forget that.

[h3ll0]

I'm not entirely sure anyone has been doing much scum-hunting for some time, though. It's mostly been "Let's lurker lynch" - all fine and good, but that's something for the future.

-Snip-

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting. Especially considering that the lurker lynch policy has already been agreed on earlier when you asked your question on who to hammer.

Alnpka is actively lurking - to me, this is significantly worse than someone who is likely to be replaced.

He has provided no original content. The most he's done is accuse Fatso of backing down and being sensetive - accusations that were parroted from other players in this game. He appears to merely be agreeing with people - a good move for scum. He's not hunting at all either, let us not forget that.

Good catch. I want to see Alnpk's reaction to that.

[alnkpa]

Concerning Fatso's question to me:
Yes indeed you are still number one on my personal 'may-be-scum-list' although someone else got my attention too. Nevertheless it is still too vague to post my suspicion, so I'll try to find some more indications about that someone. Eventually I either will or will not state who it is based on my opinion.
Further, I am now a little concerned by your last posts that hadn't much content. Your arguing with Bulvious seemed over-the-top to me, especially as you were disputing over some dates which seemed rather unimportant to me. Could you explain why you had to clarify your date of posts more than one site?

About the thing about me being actively lurking:
I don't really see me actively lurking that much. Maybe I even did it in the last few days a bit but I'm going to answer all the thing in one.

He has provided no original content.

Let me quote some things for you:

I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on,

Why didn't you vote then? Until the end of RVS you didn't say one word. As startransmission phrased it 'flying under the radar'.

lynchking did almost the same but then hopped on the wagon for Fatso without any further explanation at first. Could you please explain that because I personally think RVS was over at that time.

And my post where I voted Fatso. Both of the time I posed questions in order to find scum. Both of the time I waited some time for answers as I am not that kind of person who bases his opinions about people on facts they hadn't the possibility to answer to and clarify it. The first time there did not come any response or even a slight reaction. Second, Fatso answered sufficiently detailed while Zdenek gave a one line answer that is still not thoroughly describing enough for me.
I know that I shouldn't feel personally attacked by people not answering my question and I normally don't. I felt like some people weren't taking me seriously. So I took a step back and tried to analyse in the background still waiting maybe someone would answer. I understand your case to some extend but I won't let myself be accused of having no original content whatsoever.

[Antihero]

Your mod is back.

Vote Count #5

Banana Stickers - 2 (startransmission, Fatso)
Fatso - 2 (lynchking, alnkpa)
lynchking - 1 (sarahfish89)
sarahfish89 - 2 (h3ll0, Bulvious)
startransmission - 1 (Zdenek)

Not Voting: Banana Stickers

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch. Deadline is April 12th.

[Fatso]

Further, I am now a little concerned by your last posts that hadn't much content. Your arguing with Bulvious seemed over-the-top to me, especially as you were disputing over some dates which seemed rather unimportant to me. Could you explain why you had to clarify your date of posts more than one site?

That whole argument was very weird, and maybe it did get a bit over the top, but I think that's understandable seeing as neither of us had half an idea what the other was talking about. It finally got sorted out with a conversation between me and h3llo (that should be rather easy to find, but let me know if I should quote it). I believe Bulvious made the same mistake h3llo did (correct me if I'm wrong, Bulv).
Oh, and I was trying to clarify dates because we both thought the other was talking about a different post. If you go back and read the thing through, it might make more sense than it does here.

[startransmission]

Out of the two, I would say if Lynchking doesn't post more soon I would lynch them but I wouldn't mind a BS lynch

Why? Even thought they've each posted little, I would say that BS is scummier.

Why? Other than not voting, what has BS done that's worse?

Wow. This game has hit a wall. No activity whatsoever. Good for scum, bad for town.

I have some questions to ask tomorrow. Fatso's one to alnkpa above is a good start.

And your going to solve this problem by not asking your questions?

Either you're not paying attention to what I'm saying or you're making a clumsy attempt to feign aggressiveness.

I'm not entirely sure anyone has been doing much scum-hunting for some time, though. It's mostly been "Let's lurker lynch" - all fine and good, but that's something for the future.

I disagree. I think what questioning there has been was directed at a player who could easily fall into a policy lynch of a different nature, or who is actually scum. And the accusation of "Let's lurker lynch" is a bit of an overstatement. Zdenek asked a valid question, and people answered it. While a few players, myself included, agreed that barring conclusive evidence a policy lynch was acceptable, at no point did town settle on a policy lynch. I'd rather you not point fingers at others for not scum hunting and start doing some of your own.

It appears a lot of people are good for a Banana wagon - but what that COULD mean is yielding no information what-so-ever on the lynch. We kill her, high chance is, she'll flip town, and because everyone was pretty mutual about it, it would hardly mean anything other than that deadspace is gone. I agreed to the policy, but that's in eleven days. For now...

For now... what? Pressure on BS is absolutely warranted. Will she be replaced? Likely. When that happens I'll unvote.

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game?

Why are you asking this question to h3llo? It seems more of an observation than it is a question with the intent of garnering information. The worthlessness of the question is bolstered by the fact that you follow your question with your own opinion. It's a leading question.

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting.

Bullshit.

Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Another leading question to h3llo. So you're saying that both scum are pushing a policy lynch. Whose? BS's? So you're accusing me and Fatso? Are we keeping something off topic? Would you say that BS has been my focus? Why aren't you contesting a lurker lynch?

Alnpka is actively lurking - to me, this is significantly worse than someone who is likely to be replaced

So... one policy wagon for another? But it's

active

lurking, I get it. So why not vote for Zdenek? He's far more guilty than Alnpka of active lurking. And he's offered no more content than Alnpka. Fatso, not you or h3llo, has directed a good question to Alnpka. And Alnpka responded well. What's

your

question for Alnpka? An accusation does not make for the scum hunting. Why not place a vote if you're so suspicious?

Good catch. I want to see Alnpk's reaction to that.

Good catch?

[Bulvious]

After March 28th, we've been discussing policy lynching, BS, and Sarahfish's experience.

What information has that garnered for us?
Are we any closer to finding scum because of it? Seemed like more of a delay to me.

Additionally, my only response for Aln are two questions:
What original content do you believe you have contributed specifically?
Are you implying that Zdenek is the secondary person with your attention in the end of your post?

ST wrote:

I disagree. I think what questioning there has been was directed at a player who could easily fall into a policy lynch of a different nature, or who is actually scum. And the accusation of "Let's lurker lynch" is a bit of an overstatement. Zdenek asked a valid question, and people answered it. While a few players, myself included, agreed that barring conclusive evidence a policy lynch was acceptable, at no point did town settle on a policy lynch. I'd rather you not point fingers at others for not scum hunting and start doing some of your own.

I don't really care what you'd RATHER I do. Perhaps I'd RATHER you not assume I was excluding myself from those three or so days where we accomplished nothing. I was as guilty as others. My accusation was as much of a splash of water in the face of my own daze as I hope it was for you. And I find it awfully difficult to believe you TRULY think I haven't begun scum-hunting.

Why are you asking this question to h3llo? It seems more of an observation than it is a question with the intent of garnering information. The worthlessness of the question is bolstered by the fact that you follow your question with your own opinion. It's a leading question.

Actually, I asked two questions, I never gave my own opinion. Perhaps the second question was a tad on the biased side - but I'm no journalist, either.
You were keeping useful discussing off topic, or at least that's how I saw it - and I wasn't helping it either. I was also in favor of the policy lynch if you didn't recognize that, and I still would be under the correct circumstances. I was asking that we not dwell over that, and instead move on. BS is a dead fish now, and lingering around the pond watching her float and prodding it with a stick isn't going to make the clock stop until the fish decides to move again - which to me means we should move on.
And leading? I'm new to the game as well, asking for opinions of others are not outside my nature. If someone believes me to be wrong I expect to be told so. Is my question no longer valid merely because it appears as though I'm in favor of the conclusion I believe the question DOES draw? Or is it still a valid question and pending answer?


As far as "So suspicious" who said that? You continually place words in my mouth. I'm accusing you and Fatso. I'm 'so suspicious' of Alnpka. I'm leading with my questions. I'm trying to get another policy wagon going.
Accusing you and Fatso? When did I say that? I asked if it COULD be so. I was asking what h3ll0 thought about it, and I find it odd that you try to invalidate my questions merely because they might not have the best answers in regards to you. To be honest, I had no idea it was just you two on the boat of the BS pol. wagon other than me. It could have been anyone, or everyone. I still thought it a reasonable question to ask.
Not true, I merely directed an accusation against him. As you saw, he responded without the weight of a vote, while I'm still waiting for Sarah to either pull her head into the game and get what we're asking her to do - hence why the vote remains where it is.
Another policy wagon? Give me a break, that's OBVIOUSLY not true because my vote nor ANYONE elses vote is on Alnpka. As I said before, just because you levy an accusation or question against someone doesn't mean a vote needs to be put onto the person you're having a discussion with.


Needless to say, I find it VERY interesting how upset you seemed to get when my focal point changed to him from BS. You didn't even argue the credibility of anything I said. You just seemed to question my intent rather than fact.

[alnkpa]

Additionally, my only response for Aln are two questions:
What original content do you believe you have contributed specifically?
Are you implying that Zdenek is the secondary person with your attention in the end of your post?

I take original content to be content that may be either a question or some kind of other contribution that nobody has brought up before. Apparently, I consider all my questions to be original.
Concerning the second question, I already stated that I won't say anything unless I have enough evidence.

[madenking]

I'm terribly sorry for being mia, guys. I'll be quite busy this weekend, so let me know if you guys want me replaced.

unvote

[Zdenek]

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch?

Wasn't it clear enough from his post just above yours?

Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting. Especially considering that the lurker lynch policy has already been agreed on earlier when you asked your question on who to hammer.
...
Good catch. I want to see Alnpk's reaction to that.

Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

Zdenek gave a one line answer that is still not thoroughly describing enough for me.

Succinctness is pro-town. People will read my one line reasons, and if they don't understand them, they can ask about them. Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst.

Why? Other than not voting, what has BS done that's worse?

I've already commented about what I didn't like about BS's first post. I'd even say that I'd lean town on Lynchking because of what I perceive as him making a post that accidentally suggested or could have been misinterpreted as suggesting that we lynch Fatso today with little discussion. I think scum would be more careful to avoid making a post like that.

Either you're not paying attention to what I'm saying or you're making a clumsy attempt to feign aggressiveness.

Then why don't you tell me what you are saying, because you said:

I have some questions to ask tomorrow.

and then you didn't say anything about things that happened prior to your previous post.

Anyway, it is doubtful that we'll be lynching the IC today.

Unvote
Vote h3ll0

[Bulvious]

1. I was sort of curious if he had any other thoughts on it other than he "isn't sold."
2. When someone says "Sort of", you can expect that that means it's not proven, and that it's an example.

Personally, in my experience when lurker lynching is talked on, people seem pretty divided about it, almost 50/50. It wasn't a blanket statement, it was an observation from my experience. I'm saying that this isn't the norm for me thus far - and how can you tell me that's wrong?

Other than possible buddying, why are you voting for h3ll0?

[sarahfish89]

I'm still not sold on a lurker lynch at this point of time, seeing that we still got 11 more days to the deadline (which could be extended). Sitting around and agreeing to the policy lynch does not help progress the game either.

Okay, thanks, for some reason I thought I was going to be hated for not being able to scum hunt.

Being bad at scumhunting does not excuse you from doing it though.

No it doesn't.

Out of the two, I would say if Lynchking doesn't post more soon I would lynch them but I wouldn't mind a BS lynch

Why? Even thought they've each posted little, I would say that BS is scummier.

I think BS probably is a townie who has no internet access or computer assess. I wouldn't mind one but the likelihood is that they will be replaced.

I'm terribly sorry for being mia, guys. I'll be quite busy this weekend, so let me know if you guys want me replaced.

unvote

Getting replaced is up to you but I'd like you to post some of your thoughts by Tuesday, if possible please. (Never said I was a hypocrite when playing Mafia.)

A few thoughts on people and some posts below.
Bulvious and h3ll0 may be budding but I think they're just trying to find scum, for the town.

alnkpa, being concise and to-the-point is townie normally, so why vote on Zdenek for that.

Trying to keep post short, will reread tomorrow probably

[Fatso]

Computer asses? That's an odd way to put it, but ok.
I'd like to see people's thoughts in general on Bulvious (not if you've recently posted them of course). Not that I think he's scum, but (and maybe I'm just hallucinogenic) it seems to me that quite a few people have labeled him town from the start (sort of a general feeling here, maybe I'm completely wrong). The only reason I say this is because I always get suspicious of anyone who's labeled town without having claimed cop or something.

[Bulvious]

Yet another post without any scumhunting from Sarah. I look forward you hunting a bit in the very near future.


I know how you feel, Fatso, and it's always good to give a person a once over now and then even if that person has no evidence of being scummy.


Though I would hardly say everyone labels me town.

[Fatso]

Oh, and alnkpa, do you have anything else to say in reference to my last post answering questions put forth in your last post in reference to me being scummy?
Ok, that didn't make much sense. Just try to bare with me here.

@Bulvious: Probably not, I just read a few post where that seemed to be the case, and then posted that. I want to hear from people though. Also, did you make the same mistake as h3llo a while back? Just want to make sure that's cleared up now.

[Fatso]

Anyway, it is doubtful that we'll be lynching the IC today.

Unvote
Vote h3ll0

Bulvious already said this, but why are you voting for h3llo other than him possibly buddying a bit? (if that's the only reason, well, I

guess

that's acceptable).

FoS: lynchking

. You've posted sort of meaningless stuff twice, and still haven't said whether or not you actually wanted to quick lynch me. Not to seem rude, but either replace out or get in the game.

[alnkpa]

Zdenek gave a one line answer that is still not thoroughly describing enough for me.

Succinctness is pro-town. People will read my one line reasons, and if they don't understand them, they can ask about them. Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst.

Well as some stated that I am going along with it though I personally feel that someone who won't give out any motives just has none that would mark him pro-town.
I twice asked you to clarify the following:

Startransmission is scum for active lurking.

Twice I got no answer. Anything to say to that?

Oh and Fatso, could you please rephrase:

Oh, and alnkpa, do you have anything else to say in reference to my last post answering questions put forth in your last post in reference to me being scummy?

I am sorry, but I don't get the meaning.

[h3ll0]

I disagree. I think what questioning there has been was directed at a player who could easily fall into a policy lynch of a different nature, or who is actually scum. And the accusation of "Let's lurker lynch" is a bit of an overstatement. Zdenek asked a valid question, and people answered it. While a few players, myself included, agreed that barring conclusive evidence a policy lynch was acceptable, at no point did town settle on a policy lynch. I'd rather you not point fingers at others for not scum hunting and start doing some of your own.

While the question is valid, it is also redundant as the same question has been posted way earlier by Bulvious.

For now... what? Pressure on BS is absolutely warranted. Will she be replaced? Likely. When that happens I'll unvote.

I'd rather that we get a replacement immediately and that we start looking at other people now to move on (even if said person is me).

Bullshit.

Is it not? What have we done since the question has propped up?

Good catch?

I admit, I sort of forgot about fatso's question earlier when posting.

Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

If you feel that it is wrong that I share an opinion with Bulvious, so be it.

I've already commented about what I didn't like about BS's first post. I'd even say that I'd lean town on Lynchking because of what I perceive as him making a post that accidentally suggested or could have been misinterpreted as suggesting that we lynch Fatso today with little discussion. I think scum would be more careful to avoid making a post like that.

Quite a fallacy here. Just because Lynchking made a potential scumslip does not make him pro-town.

Anyway, it is doubtful that we'll be lynching the IC today.

Fence-sitting much? Why are you afraid to push a case on StarTransmission simply because he is the IC?

[Zdenek]

I'm saying that this isn't the norm for me thus far - and how can you tell me that's wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong, just made up, and the problem was that you used a made up statistic to cast suspicion on numerous players.

Other than possible buddying, why are you voting for h3ll0?

Partly because of process of elimination.

I'd like to see people's thoughts in general on Bulvious (not if you've recently posted them of course).

I think that he's town because early on he agreed that you were probably town. This is a town-tell because it's a sacrifice for scum to say that they think that someone is town; it means that it will be harder for them to push their lynch. The only things that I haven't liked from him, I've recently pointed out.

I twice asked you to clarify the following:

Startransmission is scum for active lurking.

Twice I got no answer. Anything to say to that?

I've always thought that active lurking is a pretty good reason to vote someone. What more do you want, an essay about why active lurking is scummy, a wall quoting startransmission's posts that show him not contributing? I can do both, but I fail to see the point. You can go look at his ISO and judge for yourself.

While the question is valid, it is also redundant as the same question has been posted way earlier by Bulvious.

The question was different. The first one was what would you do if you had to hammer early. Whereas mine was about actually lynching a lurker at the end of the day.

Quite a fallacy here. Just because Lynchking made a potential scumslip does not make him pro-town.

I never said pro-town. Misrep. 1.

Fence-sitting much? Why are you afraid to push a case on StarTransmission simply because he is the IC?

I am not fence-sitting, but I know from experience that it probably won't happen. Misrep 2.

More votes on h3ll0 please.

[alnkpa]

I've always thought that active lurking is a pretty good reason to vote someone. What more do you want, an essay about why active lurking is scummy, a wall quoting startransmission's posts that show him not contributing? I can do both, but I fail to see the point. You can go look at his ISO and judge for yourself.

I fully agree with about active lurking being a scumtell. Nevertheless you could have outlined his lurking in one or two sentences.

[Bulvious]

Fatso wrote:

Also, did you make the same mistake as h3llo a while back? Just want to make sure that's cleared up now.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Zdenek wrote:

Partly because of process of elimination.

Run me through that process. No, not a sarcastic remark of "I eliminated everyone else, and voted h3ll0, duh." I mean tell me why everyone else is eliminated but h3ll0 is the one who warrants your vote. You're VERY bad at showing reasons and I don't think that's play we should see from an exp.-town. You're making accusations without backing them up. It doesn't matter if they appear self-evident to you, if you have a case then it should either be obvious, or you should have evidence in your post. If you don't, your case is as weak as me saying "You're scummy, we should lynch you."


Additionally, this "Blanket of suspicion" as you so call it, happens to be on everyone by everyone throughout the ENTIRE game. You're getting caught on the stats, on the 50/50 remark I said. It's still NOT the norm from my limited experience, and you've yet to say anything else about it. And of course, there's the part where I never said "This fraction is irrefutably correct!" Nope, in fact, I recall saying "Sort of 50/50", and I stand by that.


Not going to sheep your vote until you give a decent enough reason to show me your case. Until then, it's staying where it is.

[Bulvious]

Additionally, Zdenek, the first 'misrepresentation' you quoted isn't true at all. What h3ll0 said there seemed quite accurate.
As for the second, that one might be but only in the scope that what he quoted wasn't really fence sitting. Have you been fence-sitting throughout the game? I'd be interested in seeing more evidence from him to show it. But, let's be honest, just like you, he doesn't really have anything there until he backs it up.