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

[Bulvious]

@h3ll0

That seemed a bit obvious, really. Fatso asked to replace out, and to begin with he appeared noobtown which chkflip all but conceded prior to his post where he unvoted. More specific answers wouldn't necessarily be bad.

[Workdawg]

@Zd

I can find a couple instances of you "softly attacking" people, but ever since I started pestering you to explain yourself, you've done better. But still, if you want to define "softly attacking" as you have, and it's a scum tell, then you've done it as much as anyone else.

Did you intentionally leave off the context of most those quotes? Allow me...

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy,

but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

In case you aren't sure what I mean... I mean that if it were to come down to it and there would be the choice between a no-lynch, or a lynch on a lurker; I would choose the lurker. Otherwise it would be better to pick a more scummy player. I also find it interesting that you pick on me specifically for this when it's pretty much the same answer everyone else gave, even though I elaborated on it even more than most other people. FFS, you were even "wishy-washy" on this question...

Personally, I think it could be a good move. We will hopefully hit scum, but no matter what we eliminate someone who the scum won't kill and who we won't be able to get a read on during the game; in both newbie games I've been in so far, town has lost by mislynching a lurker in LYLO.

The second quote from your case against me is me asking Bulvious a question and simply elaborating on why I asked it.

-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate...

as he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet. I still think he's holding up okay and his responses seem genuine to me. I already mentioned the personal attacks...

You leaving off the rest of that quote sure seems to make it look like a wishy-washy stance, but I think when you read the entire statement it makes it pretty clear where I stand on Fatso.

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here.

His post analysis is pretty accurate. Alnpka has been less active than most of us, and his posts usually don't contain any information that really helps. It's his first game though, and I still get a newbie vibe from him, like he doesn't really know how to scumhunt. During the back and forth, alnpka defends himself by quoting posts he's made that contain various questions to people and such. He seems genuine though and I get the impression that he just isn't really sure what he's supposed to be doing.

Again, the context of the quote makes my intent pretty clear.

Did you intentionally leave off the rest of those quotes in a sad attempt to twist my words into something that looks scummy? I'm sorry you feel like I'm being wishy-washy, but maybe if you actually read my posts a little bit closer you would see that is not the case. I will say this... I'm a bit of an optimist, I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt. So far, I haven't seen any cases that make me think someone is 100% scum. Most of the cases have some good points, but also flaws of their own. A case that has flaws is tainted by that, IMO. Should I ignore the flaws of the case just so I can say "I AGREE WITH CASE XXXX 100%! THEY ARE SCUM!" ? I don't think so, that would be ridiculous.

I also find it interesting that you make a case on me based almost entirely on something that I freely admitted I was doing (being a little bit wishy-washy). You didn't even point out any cases where that was even the case, though. That's the exact wording I used in post 321 to describe my play, but I also did my best to justify it.

[Zdenek]

I can find a couple instances of you "softly attacking" people

Quotes or didn't happen.

I left off the context of your quotes to show that you agreed with the lynches, adding it back in just makes you appear more wishy-washy, which by the way, is the main reason you are scum.

I also find it interesting that you make a case on me based almost entirely on something that I freely admitted I was doing (being a little bit wishy-washy).

Pointing out that you are doing something scummy does not excuse it.

[Workdawg]

So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?
...
Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.
...
Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

And those are the ones I found with just a quick skim over your ISO.

The only lynch I would have agreed with at the time MIGHT have been alnpka's, and you leaving off the context of the quotes is BS. The context justifies my comments. If you can't see that, then maybe YOU are being obtuse.

The first I agreed with only conditionally as it's better than a no-lynch for the first day.
The second wasn't even an agreement on the case.
The third one, I felt that the fact that someone was pressuring him seems appropriate, not that I agreed that he was scum.
The fourth one, Bulvious' analysis seems to be accurate to me, but I still feel like alnpka is giving off more of a newb vibe than scum vibe. What's wrong with that?

Again, should I just be blindly following one of these cases just because they were posted? Maybe I should switch my vote around every time someone posts a case. That would be pretty productive.

You are trying to twist my comments into something they are not (scummy). Mudslinging and grapsing at straws again.

[Zdenek]

So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?
...
Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.
...
Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

And those are the ones I found with just a quick skim over your ISO.

The first one was me fishing for a reaction, and as far as the other two go, I think I made it pretty clear that I thought they were actually scummy. I've brought up the issue with Bulvious' comment a couple of times and I attacked h3ll0 because of the buddying; they were not soft attacks in the least.

The second wasn't even an agreement on the case.
The third one, I felt that the fact that someone was pressuring him seems appropriate, not that I agreed that he was scum.
The fourth one, Bulvious' analysis seems to be accurate to me, but I still feel like alnpka is giving off more of a newb vibe than scum vibe. What's wrong with that?

You took a stances that you could easily back down from (as you are doing) while still agreeing with the cases.

Mudslinging and grapsing at straws again.

BS.

Your play this entire game has been to consistently take safe positions and wishy-washy stances.

[alnkpa]

I am very sorry about it, but I will me V/LA the next days, I hope it doesn't matter for you too much. Don't mind asking questions etc. to me though as I will reread it all, I promise.

[startransmission]

I've had a last few days that have been incredibly busy with both work and personal stuff. Sorry about the lack of input.

There's a lot to catch up and comment on. Will do so today.

[Bulvious]

alnpka wrote:
I am very sorry about it, but I will me V/LA the next days, I hope it doesn't matter for you too much. Don't mind asking questions etc. to me though as I will reread it all, I promise.

Maybe this will come off bad, but to me it seems like you're backing away from the game at a pretty crucial time when you're under pressure. To me this appears as though you're evading and at this point avoiding slips. You'll give no input over the next few days as you've done largely across the game. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong - but this seems like a scum maneuver.

Not that it's scummy to V/LA, but it justs seems consistent with all of your other actions.

[chkflip]

I'd like to allow the spot time to get a read on before I confirm it to be scum, if it's all the same to you.

What do you think of the people voting you?

[Antihero]

Vote Count #12

alnkpa - 1 (Bulvious)
Bulvious - 1 (startransmission)
Kard - 1 (h3ll0)
h3ll0 - 1 (Kard)
Workdawg - 1 (Zdenek)
Zdenek - 2 (Workdawg, alnkpa)

Not Voting: chkflip, drmyshottyizsik

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch. Deadline is April 15th.

[Kard]

Hmm, well, I guess the best way to jump into this is for people to ask me any questions they want answered, so feel free to fire away!

[chkflip]

Kard, what's your read on Work Dawg?

[Kard]

Kard, what's your read on Work Dawg?

Re-reading all of his posts for the second time, and I can't find anything that stick out too scummy to me, except for his "i'm bad a scum hunting" and that's just a gut feeling, and there's a large chance it could be incredibly wrong, as I'm not experienced with scumhunting.

Also, just want to get this out of the way, UNVOTE: h3ll0. I'm going to re-read the thread today, and vote for who I think is most scummy then. To be honest right now though, I'm not too incredibly sure who that will be, though I will say that Bulvious versus Alnkpa highly interests me.

I'll post more in a bit, right now I have some homework I need to finish x_x

[Bulvious]

We have limited time to reach a conclusion guys. Four days just isn't a very long time.

I'd prefer an Alnpka lynch, but if we need a compromise lynch we need to come to some sort of agreement somewhat quickly. Maybe it's wrong of me to rush people but when some people only make a post a day if that (most do about that) then we definitely need to hold the deadline in mind.

Get a case out there people, and let's start narrowing it down a bit. I don't see myself voting for Kard or Workdawg (or myself for obvious reasons), so of the current people with votes on them it's Alnpka, Zdenek, and h3ll0 for me. My case for Alnpka is up there, anyone have a final case on the other two or on Alnpka to make? Or on someone else for that matter? If not a case, then the pros and cons on voting for each person? I'll state some pros and cons to Alnpka.

Leaning Town

He's new, so some of his tells could be due to newness.
He's used his vote to a degree throughout the game.
He's maintained interest via asking questions (albeit not very strong or helpful ones.)

Leaning Scum

Little to no scumhunting.
Failure to establish a decent case base on the observations of others scumhunting.
Poor defense (which could also be due to newness).
Reactivity at the start of the case.
He cherry picks things, be it in his defense or in my case. Like when he cherry picked me saying his intro wasn't very useful and called my case ridiculous because of it, and when he cherry picked the very few useful posts he made and called them useful even if it was asking a question that didn't help a whole lot.
Leaves at a crucial point of the game, or rather, sort of AFK's in a sense. It almost seems to me like he either gave up or lost interest. He didn't even explain himself, it was just. "Cya later, sorry." That's not good enough, not to me.

If he flips town, what do we stand to lose?
Nothing.

My overall vibe on him: He's either bad town or he's scum, either way I feel like he's not very useful in the game. I'm definitely the most comfortable lynching him.

[Bulvious]

Those are just my opinions people, and how I observe his play. The way I look at it, it's 2-1, and a 66% chance to kick scum. I'm by no means saying I'm absolutely positive, but with him I feel like there's absolutely nothing to lose lynching him.

[Kard]

I've read that people that V/LA during crucial parts of the game, or simply numerous times are most likely scum, what are your thoughts on this? I honestly think it's funny that Aln left this close to deadline

[Workdawg]

A couple interesting things over the past few hours.

@Zd

- The only stance I've been wishy-washy on is my stance on you. I've posted before that I thought both Fatso and alnpka were newbie and just making newb moves. Being extra defensive, not really knowing how to scumhunt very well, etc. The reason I wasn't so sure about you is because I was having trouble figuring out for sure if you really are scum, or if it is that I just don't like your style of play and that's making me think so. The more we go back and forth though, the more convinced I become.

@alnpka

- You've chosen a VERY bad time to go v/la, especially considering your already low content and the heat on you. This is very suspicious to me. It's a good thing we got a deadline extension.

@Kard

- I'm curious about why my "bad at scumhunting" claim has given you a feeling that I might be scum. Do you agree with my case against Zd? If you don't believe me, go read up on Newbie 1052 for my meta, lol.

@Bulv

- Obviously my top choice right now is Zd, but if it comes down to it, shotty is my backup option simply because his slot hasn't been around AT ALL. He replaced in last Wednesday, put an ominous post out there claiming his top picks for scum on Friday, and hasn't been back since. Not to mention he replaced banana stickers who posted very little as well. That slot has been vacant the entire game. Sad too, because I was looking forward to playing with him. Seems like an interesting guy from reading other threads around here.

@chkflip

- Your previous vote was on Fatso, but it did seem like you weren't quite sure about him yourself. Do you have another target in mind now or are you still thinking that slot is scum and just giving Kard a chance to change your mind?

[Kard]

@Kard

- I'm curious about why my "bad at scumhunting" claim has given you a feeling that I might be scum. Do you agree with my case against Zd? If you don't believe me, go read up on Newbie 1052 for my meta, lol.

Just the fact that you brought it up in such a light hearted manner, again, I'm most likely wrong, I AM a newbie, so I can't say for a certainty, and even now it seems like it's not a big deal. I feel like I shouldn't have brought it up.

As for your Zd case, it is quite a large one, and it seems like he's got a lot stacked against him, but that's mainly what I want to re-read. Trying to read it all again after I got home gave me a headache, so I'm going to be concentrating on that soon.

[drmyshottyizsik]

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy, but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

So this is the first scum slip I found of Workdawg's the rest of my case will come later tonight, but this is enough to make me sure he is scum. He is thinking like scum here. No pro-town person would approve of a Lynch all lurkers policy conditionally. That only comes when a person needs to try to appease all people.

[Bulvious]

Work wrote:
shotty is my backup option simply because his slot hasn't been around AT ALL. He replaced in last Wednesday, put an ominous post out there claiming his top picks for scum on Friday, and hasn't been back since. Not to mention he replaced banana stickers who posted very little as well. That slot has been vacant the entire game. Sad too, because I was looking forward to playing with him. Seems like an interesting guy from reading other threads around here.

I don't like this from you. If he flips town we have gained nothing. Not even motivation for his votes. Worst policy lynch I can think of, to be honest.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Oh ya almost forgot

vote work

[Bulvious]

drmyshotty, I fail really hard to see how that's a slip. What Workdawg is saying appears to me to be very logical. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-vote, that's what he's saying. How can you disagree with that? And how can that be a slip? Seems stupid.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I was only argueing the first part of his statement. Where he tries to appeal to everyone out of fear of making someone disagree with him

[Bulvious]

It was a question made previously. Either way it's not a slip, it's him responding to something in the topic. How is this out of fear? Why would he be prosecuted if he disagreed? It still seems stupid.

[drmyshottyizsik]

The scum have to fake a thought process. So if they keep their fake thoughts as appeasing to the whole as possible then they avoid making slips, but his obvious avoidance of controversy is actually the slip its self. Just because it was on topic doesn't mean it's not scummy.