I played with Kevin and Jungle.
Noted.
*The first game I played ( With Kevin and Bungle), there was a decent amount of activity on the 1st day. That was when I was able to get most of my reads on people. In the long run, those reads helped me to form my more concrete opinions which turned out to be correct.
*The last game I played (my second game), hardly anyone posted the first day so it was difficult to get any kind of reads, and it was very irritating.
*The other game that I am currently in had a lot of good discussion on D1- up to 875 posts by the end of the day.
In the game we are in now, there was no discussion going on at all earlier. At least nothing important (imo). I did not want it to end up the same way as my second game. To be honest, I didn't know what to post. Seeing that nobody else was posting I decided that I might as well experiment to:
(1) see if I could get activity going, (2) see if I could get some information based on responses, and (3) understand the position someone is in under pressure.
Experimentation in the form of acting ******** isn't the best idea. You could've just questioned someone you felt suspicious about at the time, even if you had to pick someone at random. That way, a discussion about that player would've commenced, and the activity would've increased.
The first was a success. You say that I wasted time that everyone could have used, but to me, everyone was already wasting their own time, and frankly mine as well. I wanted to get activity going, so I did the best way I could think of. This is my third game, and I need to judge for myself the best way to go about things in certain situations. I'm continually learning from more experienced players, but if I simply listen to other people, that will put me in a situation where I am easily manipulated, and it doesn't allow me to advance in my own way.
What you did lured the town away from a useful discussion. It doesn't matter if the town starts posting and getting active if the discussion at hand is going to be completely useless later on. Like I said earlier, you could've started asking some questions instead of attracting everyone's attention to yourself. Not only that, but acting like an idiot gives people a strongly negative first impression which is hard to get rid of even if you do something good for the town. Also, you want to listen to other people. There's a difference between blindly following one person and using other's opinions about someone in conjunction with your own personal opinion of them. As long as you have your own opinions, there's a smaller chance of getting manipulated.
The second, so far as I can tell, has failed. They may or may not be useful in the future, but right now I don't think I have got too much that can contribute to the group. The responses have probably only been useful to forming my own individual reads on people. I do admit to the failing to benefit the group at this time however.
Your little "test" did get responses from people, but hey were all practically the same thing: "Get this guy out of here!" Also, you have seen me contribute a good amount despite being inactive for most of the day, so there's no excuse for you being unable to do the same. At least you are willing to admit that you have failed, but that doesn't make you any more clear than you are right now.
The third has given me some better understanding of this position. I now know how difficult it is for someone who made a "scummy act" to get out of the heat. People will not get off of it no matter which way you go. Do you explain yourself or do you ignore accusations and move on? Do you give your opinions or do simply let things flow?
No matter what you do, people now have a bias, and will see everything you do as wrong:
Option 1-I explain myself > people tell me I'm making excuses.
Option 2-I ignore accusations > people vote, I get lynched.
Option 1-I question people; pressure inactives > people say I'm just trying to turn the heat on someone else.
Option 2-I simply sit back and watch (OS method) > people say I'm avoiding pressure by lurking.
In all of the games I have played so far, a situation like this has occurred D1, and we ended up either lynching, nearly lynching, or viging a townie just because they made one "mistake" that people could not let go of. Once a "mistake" has been made, people form the bias that they are scummy and see everything they do as scummy, even actions that clearly are not.
I always thought that they were just continuing to make dumb actions that caused their death, but it truly is difficult to not be seen as scummy once you have already made some sort of scummy action.
It would've been much better to apologize instead of saying "I would never be scummy like that" at the beginning of your reveal. Plus, your list you posted afterward was almost entirely based around who you thought was town. If you had more scum reads, it would've warranted a post like that. Plus, like I said earlier, acting like an idiot is not a good way to get people on your side. Maybe people would be more willing to accept you if you were just simply useless instead of actively trying to get on everyone's nerves.
Also, there's a difference between trying to pressure inactives and actively stating that inactive players are scummy and trying to lynch them. Questioning people would've been a more effective means of getting the heat off of you if you had a better first impression as well. One more thing: You never want to lurk if you know what's good for you.
Most of the game's D1 phase is based around first impressions. In the next game you play, keep this in mind before you try wasting time and getting on everyone's scum list.
Anyways, those were the reasons for putting myself in the spot light and what I have gotten from it. I believe all of my conclusions will help me in future mafia games (like for instance, I definitely wont try something like that again, and I also will take more consideration of my biases against someone under the heat).
Like I said, I knew that it would have some negative consequences, but I was hoping that ultimately it would have have more benefit. (Also I admit that I thought it would be best to try such a thing in this game, now, rather than screwing up future games). I didn't waste too much game time on it, people were already wasting their own time. I realize I have already brought some damage simply be placing the suspicion on myself. I'm trying not to waste anymore time, but I have to at least try to keep from getting myself lynched because that will only hurt town even more. There's no way you guys can be sure that I'm telling the truth. But I know I am, So I have to at least try: I am Sheep from Sheep In The Big City. I am Vanilla Town.
So, you claimed. Very well.
There's not much I can say about this that I haven't already. If you didn't pull a gambit like this during the day, I believe that at least one person would've started turning up the heat. In attracting everything to yourself, you have done nothing of benefit for town, but rather decreased the chance of lynching a potential mafia who was active for this day.
What I mean is: you single-handedly started the Crusade against inactives, which has plagued most of the day.
I see that you acknowledge your mistake and the fact that it harmed the town more than it helped, and that you claimed a valid character/role, but there's still the chance that this is all part of one giant gambit, and that you are fake-claiming and still putting up an act to try to ward town away from you.
Ermac you said that you'll counter my counter-argument like you are so sure that I am scum. With a closed mind like that, all you are doing is continuing to waste our time. You say that I am trying to distract people, but if you are going to fight for this without even trying to understand my view, you're just going to be wasting more of our time. I made a mistake. Don't make it worse.
I'm not sure that you are scum, but you are my highest suspicion at this time. You state that I am wasting time by trying to counter against you, which is a scumtell in my eyes. I can understand your view of the game, but I still have my doubts. If you were to pose as an idiot for most of the day as part of a gambit, then it's possible that you are continuing to act as part of an even larger gambit.
Think about it this way: Let's assume for a second that you are a mafia member. You decide to act like an idiot for the first day to determine whose reaction to you is the scummiest. This plan backfires, because everyone has an equally strongly negative reaction to you, and you can't get someone to scumtell. So, as part of a backup plan, you take on the role of the "guy who says that he was faking the whole time and is trying to get sympathy points from players by saying that he's still an amateur and can't effectively contribute to the discussion nor defend himself very well". This second plan is more believable, but experienced players will know not to drop their suspicions too quickly.
So, even though this scenario hasn't been proven as false yet, you still want me to drop everything just because I'm "making it worse"? I believe that this is a scumtell.
No point in explaining these as they have already been explained.
This is where you get irritating. Did I say any of that? You're just starting to make stuff up to support your accusation. This is what I mean about how people tunnel after one "mistake/scummy action".
You didn't outright say most of this, but this is what I gathered after reading your posts.
* I suppose if you put it that way.
So you admit it.
* I never said this nor thought this. I knew the risks and I am trying to make up for them.
It sure didn't appear to be like that at the time.
*Because you were definitely doing this before right?
Being inactive doesn't throw everyone off on a tangent unless they decide to start lynching inactives. Drawing everyone's suspicions with idiotic posts does.
*I can understand this. I'm not 100% sure if this is true or not, but I think only experience will tell.
Of course, the scum list was still mostly town reads anyway, which is good feedback for the mafia if they're not sure that they are acting right.
*If I were mafia, how would it benefit me to put attention on myself? I didn't ''distract'' for that long. Only 12 of my 37 of my post were of my attempt to get things going, all of which were made in 2 days of the 11 in D1. This whole distraction argument is just dumb to me. If I were mafia, it would be illogical to get myself lynched just to keep the focus of my buddies on D1 when scum are hardly detected on D1. Plus, why wouldn't I continue to distract. Why would I even try to keep forward if my strategy was to keep suspicion on me? And is it really that difficult for people to watch more than one person at a time? No. You're making illogical accusations just to support your bias.
It wouldn't benefit mafia to put attention on themselves, unless it was all part of some form of a gambit, which it was. You say that only 12 of your posts were during your idiot phase, but those were still the first 12 posts you made. The remainder of your posts are your attempt to sweep everything under the rug and pretend that it never happened. Also, though I agree that mafia wouldn't want to put attention on themselves if they are hardly detected at all, you are still technically a new player, which makes you more prone to making mistakes.
Now you're saying that I'm being illogical. Believe me, from past experiences it's entirely possible for one person to be the focus of a certain day. Even if people were watching more than one person, it doesn't mean that the discussion will include strong suspicions because one of the players is a lot more scummy than the rest.
I wasn't making excuses out of the blue. I knew from the very moment that I said "Vote: Ermac" what I was doing. Like I said, I really wanted to get a response from OS before I told everyone what was up, but since the vote was already at L-2 (At least I thought it was) and OS showed no signs of response, I decided to explain then.
So you always wanted to kill the inactives from the very start? It's only D1, and you voted like that on the 2nd or 3rd day. Also, I thought you were trying to get responses from everyone, not just OS.
And let me make this clear: I was not "testing you [guys]", it was more of an experiment to see if I could get the game rolling, to see if I could get some info from responses, and to get better understanding of the nature of mafia itself. I wasn't "testing you". You're saying things that I have never said.
In other words, you were testing to see who would be the best player to lead a lynch against. Also, you don't know the nature of the mafia because the mafia haven't been discovered yet! So, how do you expect to know the nature of the mafia if everyone's alignment is ambiguous?!
This dominated the first game I played. We would have had a chance of winning, but people ignored the way they (the scum) were playing. I caught it, but by then it was too late.
Not letting that happen again.
It. Is. Only. Day. 1. Just because 2 people are away for a weekend doesn't mean that the game will be plagued by inactivity. I despise activity as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to use inactivity as sole evidence for leading a vote. That's just stupid.
*Dude it's only my 3rd game (Don't even take this as my trying to play noob role. I've seen this all too many times). If it's not possible then I guess I am learning so.
I can see that.
*I do care. I wouldn't be going through the trouble of even defending myself if I didn't.
You started the game by making one-liner posts and saying "I'm trying the bast I can", despite DZLE-Falz stating that you were more prone to making longer posts and being less stupid during the game he played in. That showed up as not caring to me.
Due to your newfound inspiration to stay in the game, I guess I should take this back.
* Quote Ermac: "D1 isn't the day for active scumhunting."
"Day 1 is the day where no one has any proof about anything regarding player alignment. Due to this, most lynches will just be based off of accusations instead of fact."
Which do you want me to do? This is exactly what I mean by how no matter what one does, after people get tunneling, it will always be a lose-lose situation.
I wasn't accusing you for not scumhunting. I was accusing you for not scumhunting even though you are telling others to scumhunt. Also, even if this counts as tunneling, your flip will reveal a lot about the current players of this game.
*I'm trying to make up for it.
I bet you are.
