Newbie 2016: Snapdragons (Game Over)

[LicketyQuickety]

UNVOTE: George

Official Vote Count 1.11

---

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

Lynching

GeorgeBailey

(4): QuantumQuasar, LuckyLuciano, 72offsuit, Poyzin

Quick

(2): NotAJumbleOfNumbers, Marashu

Marashu

(1): GeorgeBailey

Not Voting

(2): teacher, Quick

Deadline:

(expired on 2020-06-02 18:20:00).

Mod notes:

• Searching for a replacement for NotAJumbleOfNumbers.
  
• Be civil.

[/area]

[TheThirteenthJT]

It depends heavily on context. I'm onsite often playing in multiple games. Sometimes I post in all of them actively. Sometimes I'm focused on one game because it's in a critical state. Sometimes I'm just taking a step back from a particular game to let the thread breathe and see what directions other players are looking to take the game in.

I think dipping the moment a non-RVS wagon starts up on you, despite posting after the wagon started (in other words, knowing that the wagon is there), is sketchy. I'm also confused as to how people don't read the deletion of her profile pic as conceding. She deliberately logged on to delete her profile pic. Not to post, not to lurk, but to

delete

her pic. She didn't replace it, she

deleted

it and left again. That seems to be as close as you can get to closing your account on this site. Does newbie town effectively delete their account when called scum?

I want to start with LuckyLuciamo first. While it does look like a site flake, I don't know if is scum indicative. It's defienatly weird and I understand your push for it. Unfortunately we may never know the rtrue reason behind it. In newbie 2009 both of our scum slots flaked out early day so that is my only confirmed point of reference so far. I would be ok lynching here.

Now a few things else, I feel like I understand your game style quite closely with the col and mafia night one actions towards you. That was what actually started pushing me away from playing mafia when I quit. But my question to you is why would openly admit this so early game? Aren't you afraid of this putting a target on your back?

And before you ask me why I would admit this as part of my past as well, I've had a long break and I'm extremely rusty and nowhere as strong as a player as used to be.

Now as to ending the day early, it truly depends on how strong of a day phase it is. A weaker day phase would be ok to end early vs one where we get surges of vocal players. I know I haven't been doing my part so far in the game.

[TheThirteenthJT]

I do find activity on this site by a player which does not occur in the thread(s) in which they are playing to be scum-indicative. In other words, if you're here doing stuff (on Mafiascum) but not posting in the game you're in I find that suspicious. I hate to keep referencing my last game, but it's my only frame of reference. In my last game there was a player whose activity/behavior outside of our game thread was distinctly different than it was inside it. I voted for that player, the wagon got to L-1, and then the player was replaced. That slot ended up being scum.

In my own last game a player was wagoned for being active on their alt while ignoring the game itself. They were town.

Like the absence of evidence as evidence tell, I dislike this activity tell as the sole basis of a scumread unless in complement with other more concrete scumtells. Maybe I'm biased, though, as someone who prefers spectating games over playing in them myself.

While I somewhat agree with you, sometimes eliminating these slots is a good way of POE. Poe is my last choice as the day comes to and end I don't feel 100% confident in mine or others scumreads.

[TheThirteenthJT]

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

Where's your vote then?

My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.

This is a bad case and very reachy.

Also can you all look back at my two questions (rqs) I asked. I really want to know the answer for the first one.

I'll do this in my next post.

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."

For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.

Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.

Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete. I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.

Isn't most Day 1 early cases reachy? I really hate this argument
Also I see you join The Luciano wagon after I printed you to vote and someone else joined before you. I don't like this. I could argue myself that your case on him is reachy but again my case is reachy here no? Finally your case is more repreat what was already aid to give you a reason to join the wagon. While not Al we always scum indicative it's a good start.

Once I catch up my read here I will chiose where my vote goes but you are definitely setting off alarms.

[TheThirteenthJT]

It is all well and good to try to be the cool 500IQ anime protagonist, Detective Conan level scumhunter. However, what is much cooler, much more respectable, would be to actually help town. A mysterious, secretive, low impact town member might aswell not be town but have an entirely neutral role.

I feel called out. Remembering back at some of my best games this is exactly how I picture myself lol.

[LicketyQuickety]

Why did you come back?

[Raya36]

So I'm not super into this game yet so I'm gonna make a readslist to orient myself.

Town:

JamSV - Town, tonal/reasoning, 56 was bad town play imo. Scum wouldn't be so obvious if this was an attempt at a quick hammer though I think.

ClarkBar - I think Clark is overeager town on a reread. This is consistent with their RVS play. I no longer find defending Blopp to be scummy since the eagerness is consistent. His responses to my questioning about this sounds genuine too.

Homura - Townlean, I like the stance taken on Lucky and it's very similar thoughts to my own.

TheThirteenthJT - Slight townlean. 58 are you suggesting Jam and Clark are partners? What is your read on Clark? I believe your vote is still there.

Null:

LicketyQuickety - Null, need to hear more.

72offsuit - Null. I actually scumread RQS a bit (but very weakly), I don't find it works or does any good and responses tend to lead only to unrelated debate. It muddies the thread. Also why start RQS then refuse to answer and say it won't help find alignment? What is your read on Lucky?

Blopp - Scumlean/null for lack of content. I want to hear from her or a replacement.

Scum:

LuckyLuciano - Scum, didn't remove vote at L-1, reachy case on Blopp (had a greeting in their first post, LAMIST post (23) but I heavily disagree. How is 23 any different than the RQS questions and how could she be using it to try to look town or helpful?, saying that they came online to remove their profile pic but didn't post so must be given up scum). It seems like he's trying to make a case out of nothing. It also seems like he's trying to set up a lynch to for sure be Blopp (stating that if he gets replaced and they claim VT he'll push for their lynch, not seeming particularly interested in hearing from the replacement). It's always best to hear from the replacement of a sus player. I don't like the statistics analysis too. Usually when I see stuff like this I take it as busy work. It's not a strong case, there's lots of variables, it muddied up the thread and made the game less readable for me at least. A question for you Lucky, why can't newbtown get frustrated and quit when a wagon is formed on them? Why must Blopp be scum for this?

[Raya36]

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

Where's your vote then?

My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.

This is a bad case and very reachy.

Also can you all look back at my two questions (rqs) I asked. I really want to know the answer for the first one.

I'll do this in my next post.

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."

For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.

Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.

Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete. I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.

Isn't most Day 1 early cases reachy? I really hate this argument
Also I see you join The Luciano wagon after I printed you to vote and someone else joined before you. I don't like this. I could argue myself that your case on him is reachy but again my case is reachy here no? Finally your case is more repreat what was already aid to give you a reason to join the wagon. While not Al we always scum indicative it's a good start.

Once I catch up my read here I will chiose where my vote goes but you are definitely setting off alarms.

Most cases D1 are reachy but Lucky's case on Blopp is beyond reachy. I mean look at the case I just posted and tell me how that's a good case. And another concern is usually reachy D1 cases are used to create more discussion (mainly from the player being cased) so we can later get better reads and make better cases. But in this case Blopp isn't here to talk and Lucky keeps pushing her. Lucky isn't playing to get more info. Lucky is playing to get a lynch.

[72offsuit]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

[TheThirteenthJT]

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

It's page 3. What are you expecting?

Valid point but obviously he had multiple leans. Do you feel they were forced 72? Like he felt pressured to answer so he did?

[Raya36]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

[TheThirteenthJT]

@JamSV, why did you put Blopp at L-1 and proceed to tell players to feel free to hammer and state that you see quickhammers as NAI?

A quickhammer can be seen as NAI as it could just be a really bad misunderstanding leading to a bad play. Which is why I believe a quickhammer without an explanation is scum indicative, but one with (on its own) is NAI.

I put him on L-1 to see how he would react. Nobody would express intent to hammer so my proceeding post was to in force that a extra bit of pressure. I have faith nobody would come in and swoop to quick hammer, considering we had all already posted (excluding Echovision), and we could all easily see how close he is to getting hammered. I will admit, I really didn't expect him to "leave" if we can class that as what he is doing. Plus that type of play is good for moving more out of the RVS, and it can apply simple pressure to see just how easily somebody would actually fold.

- If you were wondering if I have a bit too much faith in people, I probably do.

Quick hammers are a difficult subject to assess. In my first game I delivered a naked quickhammer as town. I was a town mason and we had our reasons for it. In the end all quickhammers have reasons even if not explained and do follow an agenda so they are touchy subjects for me. No we maybe a quickhammers earlier in the day umpromted may be a case for scum but have not encountered that situation yet. Most come towards the end of the day phase.

Now I do find it interesting you placed Blopp at e-1 and didn't really get called out much for it. Instead Raya unvoted and Luciano got scumleaned for not doing do as well. I don't believe you had I'll intentions and neither did Luciano. Raya comes away again as most suspicious and a bit LAMIST for his unvote.

At the end we have to evaluate if we really thought it was possible a quickhammers would have happened so early in the day? I don't personally think so and I think it was unwarranted paranoid, possibly feighned.

[LicketyQuickety]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

Isn't it Scummy for 72 to ask that?

[72offsuit]

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

It's page 3. What are you expecting?

Valid point but obviously he had multiple leans. Do you feel they were forced 72? Like he felt pressured to answer so he did?

Yes. Names 2 and a half scumleans in 69 feels like a blurted out response.

By 181 Raya has 4 townleans/reads, which feels like way too many from a town PoV at this stage of the game.

The Homura townread is the sort of read I make as scum on my scumbuddy. "Similar thoughts to myself" --> its the sort of statement, which you cant really test the veracity of.

Dumps me in as a null, still doesnt explain how my actions further scum agenda, or why someone of a scum mindset makes aforementioned plays.
If genuinely believes that my RQS is active lurking filler, then why am I not a scumread?

If I was to take a stab at the game solve, I would say Raya + Homura purely off that reads list.

[TheThirteenthJT]

Damn coming in with theme music is badass

[72offsuit]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

Isn't it Scummy for 72 to ask that?

You tell me. Is it?

[Raya36]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

Isn't it Scummy for 72 to ask that?

How so?

[72offsuit]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

Null.

[Raya36]

You can take a look at my meta if you want 72. 4 townleans/reads early game is not unusual for me. multiple scumleans isn't either. And I'm sure you can find reads similar to my read on Homura too.

You're not scumread because my RQS statement is very weak and can only be used as a statement to back up a stronger case.

[TheThirteenthJT]

Why did you come back?

Is this in reference to me having retired from mafia? Mid mid life crisis lol? I don't know I really missed the chaos that can come from this game. I also wanted to work on my reading people skills again. I actually feel like I learned a lot from this game in the past and have stronger social skills because of it. And it's fun even though I have less time to play than I used to.

[72offsuit]

You can take a look at my meta if you want 72. 4 townleans/reads early game is not unusual for me. multiple scumleans isn't either. And I'm sure you can find reads similar to my read on Homura too.

You're not scumread because my RQS statement is very weak and can only be used as a statement to back up a stronger case.

1. I rarely meta dive, and when I do it's not very effective.
2. I don;t doubt that you have similar reads as town to your read on homura. That's exactly how I play as scum, imitate my town game as much as I can.
Regardless, the Homura association is just a slight ping.

[JamSV]

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

It's page 3. What are you expecting?

Valid point but obviously he had multiple leans. Do you feel they were forced 72? Like he felt pressured to answer so he did?

Yes. Names 2 and a half scumleans in 69 feels like a blurted out response.

By 181 Raya has 4 townleans/reads, which feels like way too many from a town PoV at this stage of the game.

The Homura townread is the sort of read I make as scum on my scumbuddy. "Similar thoughts to myself" --> its the sort of statement, which you cant really test the veracity of.

Dumps me in as a null, still doesnt explain how my actions further scum agenda, or why someone of a scum mindset makes aforementioned plays.
If genuinely believes that my RQS is active lurking filler, then why am I not a scumread?

If I was to take a stab at the game solve, I would say Raya + Homura purely off that reads list.

72's case on Blopp: Agreeing with Lucky. 26
Now take a look at what I made bold in his quote. Huh. Spooky coincidence.

[LicketyQuickety]

Why are you asking me for a read on lucky in the middle of your reads list?

I like to ask questions on players I'm unsure of. Sometimes I stick it in my readslist. My readslists are mostly just reference for myself. Could you answer please?

Isn't it Scummy for 72 to ask that?

How so?

Why aks that? Never heard or seen that it is or should be Scummy to ask a question in the middle of a readslist. Like, it's totally something I can see Scum asking to try and look like they are Scum hunting, but not something I can really see Town asking that thinking, "Hmm, seems pretty out of the ordinary you ask a question mid RL. I bet if I ask them why they did that they couldn't come up with an answer if they are Scum." Yeah, not really seeing that coming from Town. Unless 72 has a gob of experience, but even then there are way better things to talk about than something that doesn't really seem Scummy inherently. 72's follow up doesn't really look good either.

[72offsuit]

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

It's page 3. What are you expecting?

Valid point but obviously he had multiple leans. Do you feel they were forced 72? Like he felt pressured to answer so he did?

What's your point?

Yes. Names 2 and a half scumleans in 69 feels like a blurted out response.

By 181 Raya has 4 townleans/reads, which feels like way too many from a town PoV at this stage of the game.

The Homura townread is the sort of read I make as scum on my scumbuddy. "Similar thoughts to myself" --> its the sort of statement, which you cant really test the veracity of.

Dumps me in as a null, still doesnt explain how my actions further scum agenda, or why someone of a scum mindset makes aforementioned plays.
If genuinely believes that my RQS is active lurking filler, then why am I not a scumread?

If I was to take a stab at the game solve, I would say Raya + Homura purely off that reads list.

72's case on Blopp: Agreeing with Lucky. 26
Now take a look at what I made bold in his quote. Huh. Spooky coincidence.

[TheThirteenthJT]

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

Where's your vote then?

My vote is "on" Blopp I just don't want him at L-1

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since being wagoned, Blopp has removed their profile pic. That means they have been onsite and decided not to post. So now we have her ignoring the initial wagon that I started with 72o, despite posting after it began and ignoring my case. In addition, we have her logging on to remove her profile pic and still not posting. Feels a lot like giving up to me.

This is a bad case and very reachy.

Also can you all look back at my two questions (rqs) I asked. I really want to know the answer for the first one.

I'll do this in my next post.

UNVOTE:
I don't want a quick hammer. L-2 is plenty for pressure. Scumlean on Lucky for not removing his vote. Could be hoping for that quickhammer

Is he your only scumlean or do you have more?

Lucky and blopp. Maybe Clark but I'm unsure

"I scumlean Lucky for possibly wanting a quick hammer on my other scumlean."

For the record, I'm expecting Blopp not to post again until the slot is replaced, and if the slot claims VT I will be pushing for the slot to be eliminated.

Just because I scumlean him doesnt mean I'm right (I never take associations into account D1. I often have multiple scumread that don't work together). And its perfectly viable to be concerned about someone not removing their vote at L-1 when Blopp hasn't even talked yet.

Actually since I can't vote Blopp right now VOTE: Lucky. I think this is more likely anyway. Your stats case also was reachy and the whole basis of your scumread isn't concrete. I would accept your case if and only if it was supporting evidence of a much stronger and more viable case.

Isn't most Day 1 early cases reachy? I really hate this argument
Also I see you join The Luciano wagon after I printed you to vote and someone else joined before you. I don't like this. I could argue myself that your case on him is reachy but again my case is reachy here no? Finally your case is more repreat what was already aid to give you a reason to join the wagon. While not Al we always scum indicative it's a good start.

Once I catch up my read here I will chiose where my vote goes but you are definitely setting off alarms.

Most cases D1 are reachy but Lucky's case on Blopp is beyond reachy. I mean look at the case I just posted and tell me how that's a good case. And another concern is usually reachy D1 cases are used to create more discussion (mainly from the player being cased) so we can later get better reads and make better cases. But in this case Blopp isn't here to talk and Lucky keeps pushing her. Lucky isn't playing to get more info. Lucky is playing to get a lynch.

I will respond to your readlist post next. I NEED to respond to this first. Is case on Blopp was from what 2 pages worth of posts? Wouldn't that have to be reachy? Do I agree it's a good case? Weird yes but not really screaming confirmed scum for me and thus my vote is not on Blopp. For an elimation to be made 5 players have to agree it's a good enough case to do so. If an elimation were to occur based on that it would be so telling for the rest of the game. Making a case on a player might not get info on the player ryou are pushing but can give Intel on other players in the wagon. Why did they join the wagon? Did they explain themselves well. If it was bad reasoning, what purpose did they have joining that wagon? Miselimnatiin or bad play? So much can be told by these situations.

Overall it has provided discussion to a slow early game and thus has actually been a very beneficial wagon.