Newbie 1867 - Game Over

[Ircher]

"He didn't state a reason, so I voted for him" - why do you have a policy of voting people who don't state reasons?
"Didn't state mine since no one really asked him why for his vote" - I don't understand what other people's reactions to him has to do with how you approach him here; it seems a bit backwards to me. Like, I could see if you were voting for someone and didn't feel like stating reasons because they've already been said but I don't understanding voting someone and NOT giving reasons because no one else seemed to see or care about the same thing you did. Help me out?

His vote didn't have a reason compared to others that at least posted something though nothing concrete, it's my first game and I'm still testing the waters, I'm also waiting if someone would question my lack of reasoning since I don't know if not giving reasoning is that common or not.

Giving (good) reasoning will often make others trust you more than when you don't give any reasoning at all.
My vote was a random vote as we were in RVS, which stands for Random Voting Stage. In my opinion, random votes don't necessarily need reasoning. I mean, it's random, what would a reasoning be for a random vote?
Most people say something else like 'Hello everyone!' or a 'joke reasoning' as to why their random voted player should get more votes. Eventually there will be one player that has the most votes at some point. That person will then usually speak up so that the players have something to discuss about and over time, people will form reads. Then players will argue about each others' reads and posts and get someone lynched. This all started with the random voting stage.
I was that 'player' this time that got the most votes. So I had to speak to persuade people I'm a Townie (which, in fact, I am) and vote elsewhere. At this point, most players will start to discuss my recent posts, and probably the ones of Nachomamma and I guess yours too.

I don't know how familiar you are with mafia games so I approached you here as if you're pretty new to the game. I hope this is okay as how it is.

Than, I’m not really impressed with your recent posts (but maybe I’m judging biased): you basically gave a weak reason for not participating (which Nacho already covered), made a few more comments along that vein, and explain RVS in this post and again try to defend yourself from your earlier actions. You gave a read on Crepppy that was “not participating, possibly lurking scum”, and also mentioned I think one of Alciel posts as “odd” (I’ll have to check that one) which are probably the two most useful things you have done so far this game.

[Ircher]

The wagon formed on Harambe on page 1 is not going to do a good job of pressuring him. The first wagon to form usually dissolves, so scum!Harambe would have nothing to fear from it. I do like to use day 1 to put pressure on people though. There are not many ways to get info for town on day 1, but putting questions to people under threat of lynch is a viable strategy for town.

My townread of crepppy was a joke. Anyone taking it seriously strikes me as odd for doing so. Look at the reasoning I used.

More to come from me. Stay tuned.

You go from something that can be interpreted as a light townread/joke to saying Crepppy was obvtown to saying that you never townread Crepppy in the first place. Please clarify this inconsistency.

[Ircher]

"Oh yeah, Ircher is V/LA, let's all put him to L-1 to give him a scare when he comes back."

Probably scum will be on the Ircher wagon bcuz going from 0 votes to L-1 during V/LA will probably give an awkward response from Ircher. I'm not gonna do that for the sake of him being V/LA. It's good to get a reaction from him but his reaction will considerably be weaker than usual and scum will make use of that. No ty.

I'll instead go with VOTE: Alciel because I still think his posts are awkward.

Tbqh, I honestly don’t care because I get wagoners (and MLed) all the time, so its pretty standard. I have to admit though, I’m not comfortable with either Draynth’s or Vulcan’s jump onto it.

[Ircher]

@Ali - Explain please.
Pedit: Nvm my warning

He didn't state a reason so I voted for him, same reason why you're asking me thid. Didn't state mine since no one really asked him why for his vote.

This isn't really helpful by the way, Townies want to be as transparent as possible whenever possible. It makes you easier to read and work out what your motivations are. Scum will be intentionally obtuse and awkward about their intentions.

If you see someone doing something you consider to be scummy then definitely bring it up, even if you haven't seen anyone else do so.

Quite hypocritical, is it not, coming from the one who refuses to elaborate on their “status vote”.

[Huntress]

Vote Count 1.3

Harambey180 (2) - Alciel, Nachomamma8
vulcan logician (2) - crepppy, Ircher
Alciel (2) - ofrhz, Harambey180
Ircher (2) - Draynth, vulcan logician
crepppy (1) - Etromin

Not voting (0) -


With nine players alive, it takes five votes to lynch.

Deadline for Day One is Wednesday, 16th May, 09.00. BST, (in (expired on 2018-05-16 09:00:00)).

[Harambey180]

"He didn't state a reason, so I voted for him" - why do you have a policy of voting people who don't state reasons?
"Didn't state mine since no one really asked him why for his vote" - I don't understand what other people's reactions to him has to do with how you approach him here; it seems a bit backwards to me. Like, I could see if you were voting for someone and didn't feel like stating reasons because they've already been said but I don't understanding voting someone and NOT giving reasons because no one else seemed to see or care about the same thing you did. Help me out?

His vote didn't have a reason compared to others that at least posted something though nothing concrete, it's my first game and I'm still testing the waters, I'm also waiting if someone would question my lack of reasoning since I don't know if not giving reasoning is that common or not.

Giving (good) reasoning will often make others trust you more than when you don't give any reasoning at all.
My vote was a random vote as we were in RVS, which stands for Random Voting Stage. In my opinion, random votes don't necessarily need reasoning. I mean, it's random, what would a reasoning be for a random vote?
Most people say something else like 'Hello everyone!' or a 'joke reasoning' as to why their random voted player should get more votes. Eventually there will be one player that has the most votes at some point. That person will then usually speak up so that the players have something to discuss about and over time, people will form reads. Then players will argue about each others' reads and posts and get someone lynched. This all started with the random voting stage.
I was that 'player' this time that got the most votes. So I had to speak to persuade people I'm a Townie (which, in fact, I am) and vote elsewhere. At this point, most players will start to discuss my recent posts, and probably the ones of Nachomamma and I guess yours too.

I don't know how familiar you are with mafia games so I approached you here as if you're pretty new to the game. I hope this is okay as how it is.

Than, I’m not really impressed with your recent posts (but maybe I’m judging biased): you basically gave a weak reason for not participating (which Nacho already covered), made a few more comments along that vein, and explain RVS in this post and again try to defend yourself from your earlier actions. You gave a read on Crepppy that was “not participating, possibly lurking scum”, and also mentioned I think one of Alciel posts as “odd” (I’ll have to check that one) which are probably the two most useful things you have done so far this game.

For my reason to initially minimize my participation: just look at my previous games, you'll see that the more I participate in the game, the more people have suspicions on me and vote me. The posts that came after that one were simply explaining I've renounced on my plan and be active anyways because it still helps Town more in general even though it's worse for me myself.

Anyways, now that Ircher is back from V/LA, who should we pressure next? Ircher, these last few posts imo are a good, valid effort to explain your views on what happened while you were not here, so I don't think it's necessary for us to continue this specific discussion topic. I think it's good to pressure someone else - preferably someone that hasn't been participating that much - so that we can get more people to participate in the discussions.
(In general, if some of us realize that where we would be right now isn't getting us much further, it's probably best to pressure someone that hasn't been that active lately, get them active again so we can get further)

[Harambey180]

Based on that, I'm gonna stick to my vote on Alciel, who currently is our top low-poster (if we don't count prodded crepppy) and hasn't posted in over a day. Even though we mentioned him quite a few times recently, I'd really like Alciel to respond to those things and ask people questions about why they said things about him or about others.

[Ircher]

A Draynth wagon would be worthwhile imo. Not a lot of content and what I consider a somewhat suspicious leap onto my wagon. (Granted, the reasoning is somewhat valid, just not necessarily “fair”.
VOTE: Draynth

[Nachomamma8]

I am around now, will read up and contribute shortly.

[ofrhz]

My townread of crepppy was a joke. Anyone taking it seriously strikes me as odd for doing so. Look at the reasoning I used.

I'll hop on the Ircher wagon. It's SUPER awkward to take me seriously there.

VOTE: Ircher

I don't like this. In the first post, vulcan logician is taking a temperature of the room to see if anyone else agrees with him. And once someone else votes Ircher first, only then does he vote and his analysis of Ircher goes from "odd" to "SUPER awkward."

A Draynth wagon would be worthwhile imo. Not a lot of content and what I consider a somewhat suspicious leap onto my wagon. (Granted, the reasoning is somewhat valid, just not necessarily “fair”.
VOTE: Draynth

Why did you choose to vote Draynth over vulcan logician?

[Huntress]

I'm looking for a replacement for crepppy. If he posts before I find someone he can keep the spot.

[Huntress]

Ventriloquist replaces crepppy.

[Harambey180]

Hello Ventriloquist, welcome to the party!

When you've caught up and all, mind giving us some of your thoughts on what has happened so far? I'm very interested in what you have to say; it could get us somewhere.

[Ventriloquist]

Hello Ventriloquist, welcome to the party!

When you've caught up and all, mind giving us some of your thoughts on what has happened so far? I'm very interested in what you have to say; it could get us somewhere.

Thanks!

I am making the most of the rare May bank holiday sunshine this evening (in the UK) but I'll be sure to dime in later on.

[Ircher]

My townread of crepppy was a joke. Anyone taking it seriously strikes me as odd for doing so. Look at the reasoning I used.

I'll hop on the Ircher wagon. It's SUPER awkward to take me seriously there.

VOTE: Ircher

I don't like this. In the first post, vulcan logician is taking a temperature of the room to see if anyone else agrees with him. And once someone else votes Ircher first, only then does he vote and his analysis of Ircher goes from "odd" to "SUPER awkward."

A Draynth wagon would be worthwhile imo. Not a lot of content and what I consider a somewhat suspicious leap onto my wagon. (Granted, the reasoning is somewhat valid, just not necessarily “fair”.
VOTE: Draynth

Why did you choose to vote Draynth over vulcan logician?

Primarily because Haram suggested we move attention to someone who wasn't posting that much. Vulcan has posted a good amount of content wehreas Draynth has not.

[Harambey180]

My townread of crepppy was a joke. Anyone taking it seriously strikes me as odd for doing so. Look at the reasoning I used.

I'll hop on the Ircher wagon. It's SUPER awkward to take me seriously there.

VOTE: Ircher

I don't like this. In the first post, vulcan logician is taking a temperature of the room to see if anyone else agrees with him. And once someone else votes Ircher first, only then does he vote and his analysis of Ircher goes from "odd" to "SUPER awkward."

A Draynth wagon would be worthwhile imo. Not a lot of content and what I consider a somewhat suspicious leap onto my wagon. (Granted, the reasoning is somewhat valid, just not necessarily “fair”.
VOTE: Draynth

Why did you choose to vote Draynth over vulcan logician?

Primarily because Haram suggested we move attention to someone who wasn't posting that much. Vulcan has posted a good amount of content wehreas Draynth has not.

Dude, look at the Activity Overview, Draynth has actually made more posts (11) than vulcan (10)

[Harambey180]

And if you're referring to the amount of contribution they've delivered, you can't say that vulcan has done A WHOLE LOT BETTER than Draynth at that.

[Ircher]

Another fact is we kinda have already pressured vulcan, and again, Draynth is a bad pick for that. But you are right that on a second inspection, Draynth and vulcan have done the same.

[Nachomamma8]

The wagon formed on Harambe on page 1 is not going to do a good job of pressuring him. The first wagon to form usually dissolves, so scum!Harambe would have nothing to fear from it. I do like to use day 1 to put pressure on people though. There are not many ways to get info for town on day 1, but putting questions to people under threat of lynch is a viable strategy for town.

Disagree strongly with this reasoning; the first wagon to form *usually* dissolves, but that doesn't mean that it always dissolves and it doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to lead to a lynch. In this specific situation, I'd also argue that Harambe stating that they were being quiet so that they could avoid putting their foot in their mouth and getting lynched by scum as a result is evidence that they were being pressured.

[Nachomamma8]

VOTE: Ircher
You don't buy vulcan having a strong townread on Crepppy for it, I don't buy you not getting that vulcan wasn't serious

I'll hop on the Ircher wagon. It's SUPER awkward to take me seriously there.

VOTE: Ircher

Voting someone for not getting a joke is... questionable? Do you think that when people are scum they suddenly lose their sense of humor or is there another angle you're pushing here?

[Nachomamma8]

No, it wouldn’t be the same. A naked vote indicates some level of comfort with the vote because the person didn’t feel the need to defend it. But tacking on a “hello” indicates that the person didn’t feel comfortable naked voting yet felt like they had to say something, but couldn’t come up with anything less lighthearted than hello. It’s awk

Don't think your assumptions here are well-founded; saying "hello" isn't defending a vote in every since of the word and not everyone who plays mafia will have the goal of being light-hearted.

[Nachomamma8]

Nachomamma: He was very active for like, 1 1/2 hours. I think his posts are too long to actually bring across a point and to ask 'good' questions (as in: we see them). The "does any of this makes sense?" in post #37 is outright hilarious. Then finished off his extremity of activity with 'if I'm too inactive lemme know'.

Saying that my contributions are meaningless because my posts are too long is a poorly thought out statement that I don't actually think is true at all. If you have problems understanding what I'm saying because of formatting, then all you have to do is ask me to clarify. I ask if what I'm saying makes sense because I want to make sure that I'm not wasting my time when I'm spending a significant amount of time on a post, and also to make sure that everyone knows that it's okay to tell me that I'm rambling or not getting across the way that I intend do. The point of my post on my "activity" was to establish that I would be active when possible, but I'll also be gone for long periods of time (see: disappearing for 48 hours), and if that ever got out of hand, then please tell me so I can get someone in the slot who will be a bit more consistent.

What did you think about my #37? Did you understand the point that I was making or no?

[Ircher]

VOTE: Vulcan
Actually, I really prefer this currently (in light of what I said earlier). Partially because the game state seems to have gotten a standstill plus my vote on Draynth wasn't really accomplishing anything.

[Nachomamma8]

Other fairly equivalent votes I could see myself making are Alciel and creppy. I don't believe that either have them have done more than the bare minimum to play the game, which is sometimes a sign of scum who is uncomfortable.

This feels like a very weak read esp. coming from the IC. To clarify, I mean that I would expect a more thorough or convincing reason why you. would support wagons on those you named. But, it is early game, so honestly, there isn’t much to go by, but still, I expected some higher quality reads than “they are not doing anything and are likely lurking scum”.

Having experience doesn't make me prescient; I don't really think there was much to actively dislike in the early pages of the game. If you're expecting more high quality reads in general, your expectation isn't unreasonable, but depth comes in town reads a lot quicker than it comes in scum reads and I'm not willing to share everything quite yet.

[Nachomamma8]

You go from something that can be interpreted as a light townread/joke to saying Crepppy was obvtown to saying that you never townread Crepppy in the first place. Please clarify this inconsistency.

It was a joke. There wasn't a light townread because the light townread was a joke. There wasn't an obvtown read because the obvtown read was a joke. Is this really the best reason you have for scumreading someone so far?