Newbie 13: Organization XIII Mafia ~Town Wins!~

[Lore]

Quick question, Kuz. Do you have any opinions of your own? You've been asking a lot of questions of other people without giving your own stuff; I'd say it's a 60:40 split.

If it's because you're posting on mobile or because of newbie helping, I'm fine with it, but if not, I don't like it.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Have you read the thread yet? Serious question.

 

[Lore]

I have read it, yes, but I haven't really done a truly in-depth read yet. I just glanced at your posts, really, so I apologize if I was wrong on the you asking questions bit.

 

[Gova]

1.) Shadow Moth ()
2.) SangfroidWarrior (2) WereKill, SM
3.) Panta (2) gargaglione, BPC
4.) pheonix561 ()
5.) gargaglione ()
6.) Budget Player Cadet_ ()
7.) Werekill (2) Kuz, SangfroidWarrior
8.) Zen ()
9.) th3kuzinator ()
Not voting - panta, phoenix, Zen

With 9 playing, it takes 5 to lynch!

Deadline is July 24th at 11:59 PM EST (GMT-5).

 

[Lore]

@Gova: Do you mind changing your votecount format to only saying the players who have votes on them? It would make things a lot easier, imo.

 

[Lore]

Anyway, since Kuz asked for a Panta and Phoenix read, I'll give them.

Panta seems to be alright, especially since he also picked up on the defensive play of Sangfroid. I've got a null on him, for now.

We really haven't seen much of Phoenix, and the only thing I can think of that's worthy of note is that he also thought that Sangfroid was being defensive. Straight-up null.

Fake edit: I'm getting more icky vibes from Sangfroid now. 4 people so far have stated that she's too defensive, which makes me feel like I'm not imagining it. I'll keep my vote where it is for now until we see more from other people, as I said earlier.

Other posts of note:

Alright. I think, atm, I'd vote for Gargagloine because he seemed bent on being batman and as soon as I pointed out something amusing about it, he just decided to vote for me. Probably for no reason, so I don't really mind, but that's just my view at the moment.

This first quote is the only reasoning that Sangfroid gave before her vote. None of her reasoning that she gave later is mentioned here, but she might not have formulated the opinion yet. Either way, I'm putting it here because it's related to the point I'm making.

Alright, I'm just going to put this out there.

Vote: Garg

He's been the only one to really give me any inclination that he might be mafia. I have a feeling Panta and Cadet are town, and possibly Zen as well. I'm not sure about the others yet.

@Garg. No, not just because of the batman jokes and I'm not trying to get back at you.

I'll have to wait a little bit and maybe go back and read before I can fully answer that, but, at the moment, they're just feelings and instincts. Who knows, my insticts might be crap.

Here's her vote. She gives absolutely no reasoning behind anything other than "the only inclination for being mafia" and "No, not just the jokes." She didn't give any more reasons until after my vote, which leads me to ask this:

@Kuzi. Honestly, werekill. He put suspicion on me for something that had already been cleared.

Was it cleared? Was it really?

 

[Lore]

The edit was to take out a quote that didn't belong there. I accidentally had multi-quoted too much.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Okay, werekill, why don't you read through the entire thread and make a list of things you want to address or answers to people's questions. Because, I'm sure that you haven't responded to anything I have said at all. I would like you to. You have responded to Kuzi and Cadet, but I have raised concerns along with Kuzi and, at the moment, it would probably be in your best interest to answer them, or defend yourself, because you're doing a pretty crappy job of it.

There are a lot of things you are failing to address. Like, Kuzi and I did make a scum-tell against you.

Also, in regards to your most previous post, I have told you before (and yet you keep bringing it up because you are either avoiding it or you are honestly just blind) that my "I'll have to wait a little bit and come back..." was for why I thought certain people were town, not because of my vote for Garg. My vote for Garg was explained even before I voted for him.

Why not just read, hmm?

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Here's her vote. She gives absolutely no reasoning behind anything other than "the only inclination for being mafia" and "No, not just the jokes." She didn't give any more reasons until after my vote, which leads me to ask this:

Was it cleared? Was it really?

Do I really have to point out again that I gave my reasoning for voting for Garg before I even voted for Garg.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

In fact, give me a few hours (I have to run some errands first) but I will even personally make a list of all of the things that would clear up this silly little problem.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Sang and I already had this exact same conversation in which she accused me of not contributed any content of my own to which I already responded and provided a complied reads list.

Just because I'm asking lots of questions doesn't mean I havn't said anything of my own. It's all there in the thread.

Also I'm taking Moth off of my leaning town list and putting him back in null.

 

[Lore]

I honestly hadn't noticed your posts much because after reading the early bit, I pretty much only read your posts.

And you're missing the point: you had pretty much not given any reasons for your Garg vote before the vote, and you didn't post them until after the vote, and the post-vote reasons had nothing whatsoever to do with the "reasoning" that you had said earlier, that Garg voted after you made a joke.

Prove to me where you gave real, concrete reasons, and I'll shut up.

 

[Lore]

Edit: All referring to Sangfroid.

You're good in my eyes, Kuz, for now.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Alright, I will. As I said, give me a few hours. Is there anything else you would like me to clear up as well, while I'm at it? Because I was going to do a re-read anyways, so I may as well get stuff out of the way.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

@Kuzi. What do you think of werekill atm?

 

[Lore]

Nothing really. Is long as you can definitely prove that you posted clear reasons before the vote, I'll shut up about it and move on.

Oh, and a post number list of the things you want me to address would be nice.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Still making the list, and I do realize I didn't have an amazing reason for voting Garg, but I did have reasons, and, being as it was early on in the game and there was nothing really going on, I think I was right in having suspicion on him.

The main thing I want you to address is your piggybacking with phoenix that you're vote on me was just a pressure vote, and yet you have changed your reasonings for voting me again. I'll extend upon that a bit more. This is just something for you to think about while I make my post.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Alright, here we go. I’ve laid it all out for you. Sorry for the length of this, but it was the easiest way.

Okay, well, first of all, before I had voted for Garg, Kuzi had asked for whom I would vote for if I had the chance. This is my post:

Alright. I think, atm, I'd vote for Gargagloine because he seemed bent on being batman and as soon as I pointed out something amusing about it, he just decided to vote for me. Probably for no reason, so I don't really mind, but that's just my view at the moment.

This is the reason I didn’t vote for him then.

But, no, it's not enough to vote for him, seeing as I haven't yet, but I have suspissions.

I have already explained my reasons for not wanting to vote in this post.

@Kuzi. Well, to me, it is. In all of my previous games, a vote was final and you could not really change it, and sometimes we killed innocents for that reason. I guess my unwillingness to vote stems from that.

That had been cleared up for me with Kuzi’s post of:

Withholding a hard stance or reluctance to place can be considered anti-town (and thus scummy, by some people) because you're not giving town a clear roadmap to look at after your flip. Town want to be able to flip and have that roadmap in place so other townies can look back after they are dead and take their reads into consideration. Scum don't want that because it could help townies look back and deduce their scummates from such connections and thus often try to stay as stanceless as possible, if they can help it.

I guess I understand where you’re coming from with the idea that I didn’t give enough support with my Garg suspicion early on, but he was just the first, and only person for a while, that seemed like scum to me.

With my #201 post, I had finally decided to vote for the person I had been having suspicion of, and he had been the only one to really give me mafia reads. I mean, it’s early on. What other reasons can a person really have for voting except for a feeling that early? But, I digress.

Explain you reasoning for Panta and Cadet.

I came back to this at #206 and #207

This was for who was town, which you seemed to not get.

Vote: Samgfroid

She seems to be actively scumhunting, but despite being told to do so, she took way too long to place a vote.

When she did, it was a fairly clear OMGUS, and that impression isn't made any better by her saying no clear reason and then saying that she'll reread to get that reason. If she has enough suspicion to vote for him, why wouldn't she give it at the time of the vote, or even after being called out on this very point?

Now, where in the world did you get the idea to pressure-vote me? Because, from your post, it seemed like you had other reasons to want to vote me, so why would you go back and change your reasons later instead of sticking with them?

Now, go back and read my #210 post, please.

#211, I come back to what I have said over and over again, yet you continue to bring up crap.
I’m not sure what you want to take from this line from Kuzi, but I figured I should let you look at this as well.

Unvote; Vote: Werekill

You're right that she seems to be actively scumhunting, but I don't see what's so scummy about taking her time to place her vote. She clearly explained when I questioned her about it why she held the views that she did and, if anything, her reluctance to follow along with what I told her to do just proves she has independent initiative. I think scumSW would have voted Garg immediately after I advised her to.

Here, I have to thank Kuzi for saying what I apparently had issues with trying to find the correct words to say:

If she stated her reasoning back in the thread, I don't see why it reflects badly upon her to vote without re-stating it.

Now, what were you’re reasons for thinking it was an OMGUS vote? Because, you stated it but never went back to it, even after Kuzi, me, and even Garg commented on it.

And this is where our suspicion with you started:

In response to the whole of this post, I want to pressurevote Sangfroid Warrior. From the way you're playing, you seem awfully defensive of your claim that voting for someone who makes jokes often is a good vote choice.

I understand this one was posted by phoenix, but, immediately after, you followed up with this, claiming to change from being suspicious at my so-called OMGUS vote:

Honestly, I was just pressuring a bit, even though the reasoning for the vote was shaky.

However, as phoenix has said here, basing a vote on the fact that someone makes a bunch of silly jokes on is a bit shaky. By that logic, my Scamp vote should make me scummy as well, so my vote is staying until I find someone scummier than her.

The conversation that cleared up the joke thing was between Garg and me, starting mostly at either #144 or #203 and #206, all of which was before you made your vote on me known.
Here, you didn’t really answer this part of Kuzi’s post and I want you to now.

Dislike. The only instance that has caught your eye thus far is SW's vote on garg?

I mean, there’s nothing else on this entire thread that might be taken as scummy? Really?

Now, in your #326 post, you commented on my explanation of wanting to vote Garg and say that nowhere else did I explain the Garg vote. I thought I had made it clear but I must not have. I admit my wrongdoing on that part. But, I did explain my reasons eventually, and even slightly beforehand.

Again, I apologize for the length.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

sorry, forgot end brackets on werekill quote near the end.

Honestly, I was just pressuring a bit, even though the reasoning for the vote was shaky.

However, as phoenix has said here, basing a vote on the fact that someone makes a bunch of silly jokes on is a bit shaky. By that logic, my Scamp vote should make me scummy as well, so my vote is staying until I find someone scummier than her.

 

[Xivii]

@Zen: Thoughts, if any, on BCP forgetting that X1 wasn't in this game? Can you give me a read on Panta?

His forgetting in itself is a null tell. I did like how he admited to his mistake though. The only thing suspicious about it was that he was skimming, but he admitted to that too which I liked.

?
@SW, Zen: Out of Werekill, BPC, Panta and Phoenix, who're you most suspicious of and why?

Out of the four, Werekill. I really disliked post #246. It really seemed like he was copping out there and I don't buy that he hadn't read your post against him.

He seems active enough and he didn't respond negatively to my pressure vote (if he even saw it).

Did you not see my response?

@Kuzi. Assuming mafiascum on who, precisely?

Mafiascum is another website for mafia. He was assuming that was the website Panta was using.

 

[Xivii]

Kooz what put Smoth as leaning town to you before?

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Mafiascum is another website for mafia. He was assuming that was the website Panta was using.

Yeah, that was my bad.

 

[th3kuzinator]

@zen: nothing but so me meta but I'm mostly discarding now that Had time to think about my reasoning.

I said in an earlier post that I would be removing the null leaning town read.

 

[Gargaglione]

I change my mind, Vote: Werekill Werekill seems too bent on just bashing SW. It's very odd behavior.

 

[Lore]

SW, I still don't like the facts that you didn't have many real reasons before the vote and that you didn't explain in the vote post, but at this point, I might as well let it slide; there's no point to arguing this further. Honestly, just the admittance that you didn't have too many reasons at first makes me content, even though I really don't consider bringing up an reason that you never mention again when asked to give your reasoning as stating the reason behind the vote, but really, this argument can take Days and needs to stop so we can get back to scumhunting.

Unvote. If you eventually flip scum I'm gonna punch you in the face.

By the way, the reason why I quoted the "I'll come back later" thing is because it was one of the posts inbetween your vote and my vote. The whole point of that section was that you didn't put any reasoning in any of the posts within that period.

I will admit that I originally thought that post meant to wait for reasons for your vote, but that was because you literally gave no clear clue as to what you were referring to. No quotes, and not even a single hint in the wording. I could take your statement of what it is as a lie meant to cover up a mistake, but foe convenience's sake, I'll take your word for it.

Can I wait to reply to the rest? I'm on my iPod, and quoting is a pain in the butt on here.

@Garg: Didn't you kinda randomly bash SW too near the beginning? You said that she was being defensive, yet she really hadn't had much of a chance to do so.

 

[Lore]

*but for convenience's sake.

I put foe instead of for.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

but really, this argument can take Days and needs to stop so we can get back to scumhunting.

I have to agree. And I do admit to not having that many concrete reasons for voting, and I apologize, I guess, for not stating my reasons with my vote. I did not know I had needed to, but for future reference I will.

As to the "I'll come back to it later" line, I see where you are coming from, but I honestly had not seen a need to explain my vote further. I had really meant to come back to my town reads, and I can see now where you got the idea that I was talking about the other stuff. But, again, it didn't occur to me to make it clear.

And, yeah, whenever you can is fine.

 

[Gargaglione]

@Werekill
No, there's a difference between straight bashing and just arguing with somebody. I was arguing with her, not just repeatedly attacking her like you. Another huge difference was the fact that she was the only other person active at the moment, besides kuz. I wasn't going to argue with myself was I?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

K.

Unvote, Vote: Werekill

Panta is still my second-best guess, but Werekill is definitely the most suspect at the moment. A claim would be nice.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Werekill is at L-1 and thus takes one more vote to lynch him.


NO ON ELSE VOTE WEREKILL UNTIL WE'VE HAD A CLAIM AND WE'RE SURE WE'RE READY TO END DISUCSSION.

I normally wouldn't support soneone claiking this early into the Day but I just realized that deadline is in 3 days so I'm fine with this.

Werekill, you should claim.

 

[Lore]

Whaaaat? I'm surprised that I have to claim so early, and just because I kept pushing SW to prove herself and shut me up.

Roxas, Vanilla Townie. Not much else to say, other than please don't lynch me.

(still on my iPod, so I haven't had a chance to really reply to SW)

 

[th3kuzinator]

Vt claim doesn't change my opinion of anything.

Here's the deal Werekill. You've admitted you are now fine with SW, but thats about all I've seen from you. Just a large argument with Sang back and forth in which that finally convinced you to unvote.

The problem that I still have with you is that you're providing no alternative to Sang's lynch. You've been too busy defending yourself from attacks that you've lost all sight of where you actually want to go. You've argued with Sang to the point where I feel there is enough information in the exchange for any further discussion to just be a re-hash of what has already been said.

In your next post I want to se 10% why we shouldn't lynch you and 90% who we should and why.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Unvote pending further investigation. Werekill is certainly my top suspect, but I don't think we're quite ready for a lynch. Just wanna make sure my read on him is accurate. And yes, I agree; Vanilla Townie is possibly the least meaningful claim possible, but I'm not willing to rush into a lynch this early. I'll reassess and be back hopefully before too long.

 

[pheonix561]

HURRRRRRRR I FORGOT I WAS IN A WEREWOLF GAME YESTERDAY HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@Pheonix: Do you agree with me on Werekill? Did your view of voting/D1 change from reading my post? What is your read on Panta?
why?

I didn't change my opinion of D1 voting. I still maintain it's an invaluable asset to every game, but also that despite however much discussion takes place, most scum kills on that day end up resulting from luck.

I thought I had explained that I wasn't simply voting for him just because of his jokes. In fact, they had very little to do with anything at all. I don't feel like explaining, again, that he seemed to not know what to do and wanted to just make jokes so people looked over him. The jokes themselves had nothing to do with it, and I wouldn't vote for someone just because of a joke he/she has made. I would vote them if something they happened to say or do seemed particularly scummy to me. For garg, it was absence of anything concrete or anything that furthered the town's cause that made me feel he might be mafia.

I'm aware that this is the case. When I say "voting for him for his jokes," I'm referring to this quote of yours:

I would vote them if something they happened to say or do seemed particularly scummy to me. For garg, it was absence of anything concrete or anything that furthered the town's cause that made me feel he might be mafia.

This is how I was reading your vote, as something that wasn't concrete. The only thing Garg did was make some joke votes to throw pressure around on D1. We all do that. I don't see why it should be anything to retaliate against, because how does it warrant retaliation?

I'm going to /unvote for now, but only because I'm not caught up with the discussion entirely and don't want to be the one forcing a claim or dropping a hammer. If I vote for you again later, it's because you haven't done anything to clear yourself in my eyes yet. Apparently we're all about to vote for werekill, so I'm going to look into that.

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Okay, this is just me being my newb self so could Kuzi or Zen (as the IC's, take no offense anyone else) answer this for me? What is the point of claiming? I mean, it's not like anyone is going to believe you, even if you are town. I just don't see how it would help, either way.

 

[th3kuzinator]

You play irl mafia, right? If someone claims cop do you still lynch them?

 

[SangfroidWarrior]

Well, we did one time because the seer (the cop) claimed and we had a possessed (who was tecnically innocent but sided with the wolves and won if the wolves won) and between me and the possessed we got people to lynch the seer.

But no, if they claimed cop and nobody refuted it, I wouldn't. But, what about the cop? Wouldn't it be in the mafia's best interest to lynch the cop? Especially if there is no Doctor.

 

[Lore]

Claiming gives people a chance to cpunterclaim if scum are lying, and it lets the claimee reveal if he or she is a power role. I was just in a game where I had to claim because a watcher outed me as a pr (cop to be exact), and from that point on, it made revealing my nightly investigations easier.

It also would have been a follow the cop situation if the doc didn't target someone else two nights in a row and left me to die.

Anyway, your reply is coming, Kuz, and Sw, yours is coming after his since his reply will be shorter.

 

[Lore]

That was directed at SW's earlier post.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Sang you question was why is claimibg even nessecary yet you seem to already understand that we wouldnt lynch the claimed cop. Put two and two together.

If the claim is of any real significance it gives us a chance to switch wagons.