NOC Fallout New Vegas NOC [GAME OVER - Wastelanders Win]

[Amianki]

Amianki, why do you think BT is scummy? I couldn't find anything that seemed off for him and i'm curious to see what you're thinking there.

I stopped taking notes after page 4, but the one specific example I jotted down about him before that was this post, which is a remarkably different stance from what he posted here. I can't find any reason that would prompt this switch and it's so unnatural that it doesn't look like town trying to further the game.

Otherwise, a lot of it is just his general posting. He looks like scum trying to do the minimum to keep afloat in the game, yet he's still paranoid that what he does say will make people suspicious of him. His scumlist post and response to Fates afterwards regarding it is the best example of it.

 

[Amianki]

So many posts in such a short time but let me do this then catch up.

Amianki It helps more if you give some sort of reasoning/rational to your thoughts instead of just saying "he is mafia" and leaving it at that. I went over this with moi, but it might be best to not to tip your hand and scream and shout all your subtle leads. But if you are going to go through with calling someone out some reasoning would be helpful. Especially at this stage of the game. Voting people without much justification puts us back at random voting.

I'm kind of waiting to see what Fatecrashers has been working on through these conversations, as he has been strangely quiet. But I'll give him some time to assess more.

Also, for people calling other users out/asking for responses... I'd recommend tagging by using @ and then the name. While we probably have this thread watched, things might fall through the cracks a bit and it's easier to not only get a notification but get who people are talking at instead of about.

It's just how I operate. There's a method to how I scumhunt and not revealing very many of my thoughts right away is part of it.

 

[rssp1]

Actually, I think that makes decent sense. By far the best lead so far today.

Except that Spiffy was VIEWING THE THREAD and then didn't respond to my post! Very common mafia tactic, maybe even a full on scum slip. We must lynch him at once!!

I legitimately can't tell if you're being serious or not.

 

[LightWolf]

Hi people! Let us go over with thing I feel are comment worthy:

Page 4, moi talking about his increased likeliness of being clean due to people pressuring him. Well firstly the thing he was pressured on was silly and I really don't agree with him being more likely to be good due to it. For on Courier is a wild card we don't know about and the Legion would pressure as well. On the other hand it was like 4 people on moi, that's a way too small number of people to be dropping this card on.

Page 4, Spiffy feels like he is basically spending half his posts highlighting people who in his opinion aren't doing much or complaining about people who aren't contributing in a way he likes and the other asking people fairly simple questions that have no right to be asked day 1. I don't like non content content.

I'm not very concerned about von, mostly because I'm fairly certain he has no idea what his role is.

Everyone should place self preservation first, because they all know that THEY ARE CLEAN and can only truly trust themselves, anyone reasonable will try to be the one to lead the village to victory with their opinions and ideas.

on the moi debacle on page 5, I disagree with moi's playstyle on the grounds that he is taking a specific type of behavior and just assigning it to cleanness. I don't say he is bad due to that(I merely believe that contradictions are the way to go and ignore past games in general) but his extensive list of who is what is what likely is kinda eh for a day 1 list of opinions on players, and by eh I mean to specific.

I agree with rssp1 that bussing is a thing mafia will likely do and is expected to do, best mafia players will ignore who is or isn't their partner and just say what they think, lest they be left standing around dumbstruck at certain situations.

And since it kinda connects to the previous point, I could careless what mafia take from what I say and utilize it, I very much welcome if they suddenly change their opinions and style of play, makes my job easier.

Page 6, Spiffy there WILL be a town leader! Well possibly. There always is at least one person who tries to influence people to start a discussion in a specific direction, setting the theme of the day so to speak, likely a person people just think is likely clean. Your style of posting up to this point has been fitting this to a t, expect that most of them have been largely consisting out of noncontent, and have generally lead to(not due to you necessarily) discussions of mafia theory or mafia terminology.

Page 7, agree with Fate, firstly the kidding reply seems to come waaaaaay too late and after he already tried defending his opinion. Though I could see him trying to use the kidding thing even as a villager, it seems more like a mafia thing, especially with little to no activity since then till now.

Aaaaaaand moi subbed out, this saves me the detailed post where I dance around the fact that both of them seem to be honest about believing in their own playstyle and that I would want to return to their convo on later days when they each have provided more aimed at others with more chances to slip up.

I was gonna say page 8 had one of the best content rich posts for Spiffy, then he proceeds to attack cancerous too when all that happened was the new guy's wish being granted of being given an overview of the day so far, I mean at least complain that say cancerous had little activity and jumped on the chance of making a non-content post to appear active and helpful.

See rssp1 gets it!

So end result for the start of page 9 is the following, I wanna vote Spiffy, mostly to see how Spiffy actually does in arguments where he has to defend himself and see how he aggresses back!

 

[LightWolf]

Oh right I forgot to actually vote spiffy

Unvote
Vote Spiffy

Also I'm fairly certain Celever was indeed not being serious there rssp1 and was instead making fun out of the comment where someone said the same thing about her.

 

[sunny004]

Lynch Cancerous

 

[JALMONT]

I'm back to square one on reads to be honest. I notice that lots of people are confused about how Jalmont came up with some sort of scheme that seems entirely idiotic and not thought through at all and as a result makes him look bad and if he's town and gets lynched will fuck over his own team... but that's Jalmont.

bzzzt incorrect, but i reckon that's par for the course for you then eh? (wait don't get mad it's just a joke !!!)

Just so it's clear I've never been a proponent of no lynching ever. It would be fairly easy for me to bring up every single post I've ever made detailing what that's the case but I don't think that's quite useful in any case. My hope was that I would get pushed a little harder on that, but I wasn't. Oh well. And since that's not really a focal point right now, I see no need in really defending myself re: no lynch any further.

I find that Celever's sentiment of "you can't make big posts on iPad" a pretty poor argument considering that one does not need to make big posts at all to be successful. Large posts clutter the thread causing actually pertinent discussions to stagnate over dumb "he said she said" type arguments that usually end up being meaningless. On the plus side, they look cool so it's fairly easy for mafia type up a whole bunch of nothing. Viewing thread --> not replying is also a weak reason to vote someone but eh.

Actually, nah, VonFiedler is pretty town on page 5.

I'm getting really nervous about how many people are gunning for the silent slots in this game. I actually forgot about Haunted Diamond, but he's a scumread too.

What's wrong with gunning for silent spots? Beginner players who are silent are more likely to be mafia in that they have more to be worried about if they get lynched compared to if they are village IMO. Plus, silent people are impossible to get good reads off of, so getting them to talk is never anything but helpful.

 

[Celever]

I find that Celever's sentiment of "you can't make big posts on iPad" a pretty poor argument considering that one does not need to make big posts at all to be successful. Large posts clutter the thread causing actually pertinent discussions to stagnate over dumb "he said she said" type arguments that usually end up being meaningless. On the plus side, they look cool so it's fairly easy for mafia type up a whole bunch of nothing. Viewing thread --> not replying is also a weak reason to vote someone but eh.

By "big posts" I mean that you basically can't quote more than one post. My options were to either spam with double/triple posts and prevent discussion or to actively lurk, which was the better option seeing as how it's only Day 1 anyway.

 

[rssp1]

Amianki, the first post you stated seems like he's asking a question while the second one is where he states his opinion... unless i'm reading that wrong. I think what you're saying for the scumlist post makes sense, though.

@LighWolf, ah. makes sense. I was thinking it could be something like that, but I didn't remember if there was anything said about him before. Also... won't telling Spiffy that you want to see how he defends himself make him... defend himself like a townie would(whether or not he is town)? There is something i'm thinking that you want to accomplish it so actually don't answer my question, treat it like a statement idk

sunny004 pls at least say SOMETHING as why you're lynching someone, it's good to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter...

I also think Jalmont's last point is false based on personal experience (I know I said this can be faulty but it's not JUST my experience in this case) since my play along with the play of many others who i've watched as new players is generally lurky (ignoring whether they are town/not town) until they have experience, mainly because they get confused by a lot of the stuff that goes on/they feel that their opinion isn't as valid or that is doesn't carry much weight/they feel that what they're thinking is probably wrong and they don't want to screw others over by stating that (obviously there are other reasons, these are just the ones that i've found to be true in my experiences).

I also completely misunderstood "gunning for silent spots" and thought it meant people who were trying to be silent instead of people thinking that those who are silent are scummy. Whoops.

 

[JALMONT]

Fair enough then, I don't agree with you (double/triple posting is infinitely better than walls and not posting at all), but I think that sort of mindset combined with your behavior does make sense.

 

[Amianki]

What's wrong with gunning for silent spots? Beginner players who are silent are more likely to be mafia in that they have more to be worried about if they get lynched compared to if they are village IMO. Plus, silent people are impossible to get good reads off of, so getting them to talk is never anything but helpful.

There's a couple reasons for this.

1. It's easy for scum to stay at least somewhat active and push less active posters for lurking. It's not that hard to fake and it's low risk; if someone they're pushing for this reason pushes them back, they can just say "oh sorry, didn't know" or something similar, and that's the end of it.
2. I'm not getting the sense that the players who ARE actively posting are being proactive in figuring each other out as it is. A lot of the posts in this thread are related to the lynch vs no lynch situation, setup spec, the von/moi debate, etc. My strategy in this situation as scum would be to try to add to this type of mindset (since it splinters town up and prevents a unified town voting block, which is by far the biggest threat to scum), and pushing players not involved to go down the same path is a simple way to achieve this. It has risk to it, but it's not as much since less active players are less likely to be able to form this type of town consensus.

 

[JALMONT]

last post was @ celever

"mainly because they get confused by a lot of the stuff that goes on/they feel that their opinion isn't as valid or that is doesn't carry much weight/they feel that what they're thinking is probably wrong and they don't want to screw others over by stating tha"

think about how a beginner player would feel if they were mafia and it's this x10. of course, i think my statement is v. broad, i think that post content is much more insightful in terms of mafia v village for beginners.

 

[Amianki]

Amianki, the first post you stated seems like he's asking a question while the second one is where he states his opinion... unless i'm reading that wrong. I think what you're saying for the scumlist post makes sense, though.

The opinion was that town shouldn't no lynch; it's a pretty static stance. Suddenly getting cold feet and asking other players which side is the better choice after a conversation about role PMs being sent via RNG instead of being chosen on purpose is a really weird thought process to have.

 

[JALMONT]

There's a couple reasons for this.

1. It's easy for scum to stay at least somewhat active and push less active posters for lurking. It's not that hard to fake and it's low risk; if someone they're pushing for this reason pushes them back, they can just say "oh sorry, didn't know" or something similar, and that's the end of it.
2. I'm not getting the sense that the players who ARE actively posting are being proactive in figuring each other out as it is. A lot of the posts in this thread are related to the lynch vs no lynch situation, setup spec, the von/moi debate, etc. My strategy in this situation as scum would be to try to add to this type of mindset (since it splinters town up and prevents a unified town voting block, which is by far the biggest threat to scum), and pushing players not involved to go down the same path is a simple way to achieve this. It has risk to it, but it's not as much since less active players are less likely to be able to form this type of town consensus.

1. so differentiate between people prodding as mafia and people who have legitimate reasons to prod those who aren't talking. i agree that that can be a very mafia thing to do (i'm wary of how specifically spiffy did something like that in some mafia) but that shouldn't mean we should let people who don't talk enough off with a free pass
2. talking about non-scum things isn't bad, what the no lynch situation, sestup spec, von/moi stuff should do is give people ideas as to who is mafia/village. personally i think the moi/von argument was a huge discussion stifler for the reason that it was unnecessarily prolonged, but in any case, those situations should give people room to talk and from there develop opinions on scum/mafia. i'm not sure i understand what "pushing players not involved to go down the same path" means (as in, in being splintered? it's bad if everyone thinks exactly the same way). why would less active players be less likely to form town consensus? isn't that good? i feel like either i or you are mistaking "town consensus" for "getting enough votes for a lynch." I think it's pretty obvious the latter is very important, but I don't think the former is important at all.

later tonight i'm going to talk about who i would be happy w/ lynching.

 

[Spiffy]

Saying that I am "ignoring your main argument" would make more sense if you'd actually said it before that post though.

his insight is really broad and unhelpful. Like he's trying appear contributing but not actually doing anything.

My main argument against you. Post #133. The post you cited was Post #147. Therefore, I did explain my argument against you before this post.

True, I having been fleshing out my main opinions.

I like how you acknowledge this but make no effort to do so and just make irl excuses.

Interestingly, you didn't actually quote yourself or ask me to respond to anything you'd said in any of your earlier posts, even in the discussion topics you gave me, which draws me to the conclusion that you're lying on this point. Care to back it up with evidence?

In the post in question, I accused you of having broad and unhelpful insight. In response, I expected you to elaborate on the claims I cited. You're right in that I didn't explicitly state this, but when your quality of posts is questioned, I don't see why you wouldn't go clarify/explain them in more detail.

I haven't actually contributed since I've been called out on it, have I? I don't remember exactly, but I think most of the "calling me out" was done on pages 6 and 7, whereas my last contribution was early page 6. So you're also lying here if I'm remembering things right.

LOL @ how you are trying to weasel your way out of this one. I will revise my statement: Of the times you have "contributed", they have all been in response to someone calling you out (other than your RVS vote). You're really grasping at straws here.

I disagree. The very act of me telling sunny to do something is me doing more than he is.

Fair enough. More by an extremely marginal amount.

This so called "common mafia tactic" which you'd called for "2 or 3 more votes" on me for was that I had been viewing the thread earlier and I hadn't responded to you.

In some NOC games I have played, mafia players have avoided responding at all to the thread until their teammates could get online and help them construct a response. "Common" may not have been the right word, but there is precedent. EXCUSE ME if I didn't predict your claimed computer accessibility issues. In a game where you are guilty until proven innocent, there is no reason for me not to point this out to everyone.

Bottom line: Your entire defense is to make fun of one throwaway, trolly post I made about you. You're rewriting history to make it seem like my only argument against you was that you viewed the thread and didn't post. You are proving the point I have made against you this whole time. This entire post was you explaining yourself. You only seem concerned with how everyone views you, and you offer no insight into anything else. Seems to me that you are trying to perpetuate this argument to make it seem like you are contributing to discussion, when you're actually not. You should know this tactic very well, because this was my strategy Day 1 of Mario Kart NOC, where I was mafia, and you were the person I picked the fight with! You have done nothing but defend yourself and try to get everyone to forget my REAL argument against you (which you even acknowledged in this post but didn't address at all).

I will read the posts that have been made while I was typing this and respond to them as soon as possible.

 

[ButteredToast]

Maybe I'll try and help out here a little bit with my mentality. Here are my thoughts on this game so far.

I'm a fairly new mafia player who has lurked a lot but hasn't really played in a lot of games and this is my first NOC. When I was asking about lynching, it was a sincere question at the beginning of the game and I settled on an opinion after listening. I was leaning that way but I wanted to ask to try to find best practices. Honestly this game is just as much about learning and being apart of things so I can form my own opinions later on in the game and in future games. I want to leave feeling more prepared to play other ones in the future.

Second, my thoughts on something like this is that we are all kind of trying to go after people for small things and tells we perceive. I feel that in general we are going after small hunches and minute details because of lack of information and blowing everything up to be a big deal. Every mistake we make must be because we are mafia trying to deceive, and not because we are humans. Every time we don't answer a post it is because we are stalling to craft a story, and not because we are busy. If they change they're mind, it has to be for personal strategic reasons and not because they were convinced something they were doing is wrong. The only thing that does is to prompt them to be more active in the conversation and honest about their mindset. It does nothing to really offer us any real thoughts.

I'm trying to go at this somewhat logically and go after peoples motivations and mindsets, not over react to grand schemes. The mafia is not this perfect mastermind of a being where they have every action planned out ahead of them and are operating on this grand scheme behind the scenes where they are coaching each other on their actions. I don't see this game like this, but then again I'm not all too familiar with NOC to say how things are. Just trying to make sense of it all.

Honestly, that's my game plan. Just try to be logical and to do things thought out and for a reason. I said something to Moi because I felt he had specific things he was looking for which might have got us somewhere in identifying something of value. At this early stage the specific arguments and cases we should make on people should not be let out of the bag. Gather more evidence, follow people more closely, ask them some questions to get them talking more, but don't unleash your case on them until closer to deadline.

Sorry amianki if it seems like I am trying to do the minimum. I'm just trying to pay attention, see what people are doing, offer my opinions, and actively learn. And to try and get us into more honest and open conversations instead of a focus on an over reaction to small things. I feel everyone should be picked on equally and give a speech or have their time under the hot lamp, but we can't forget that this is a team game and all of us need to keep the big picture in check.

And back to what I was saying before. If you have specific questions for me or anyone, ask them. It's encouraged. But blanket statements such as "BT and [Insert 6 other players] are scum" get us no where. Question me. Ask people their opinions of me openly. Get me talking so you can build a case, and then present when we get closer to deadline.

 

[sunny004]

sunny004 pls at least say SOMETHING as why you're lynching someone, it's good to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter...

No.

Lmao Jk

Tbh, I don't have the time to read thousands of walls of texts of posts (I can still play but srsly?)
To me, there are three candidates that kind of stick out to me: Spiffy, Celever, and Cancerous. (But Spiffy not so much)
Out of the three Cancerous tbh seemed most scummy. So yea.

 

[JALMONT]

why

 

[Amianki]

1. so differentiate between people prodding as mafia and people who have legitimate reasons to prod those who aren't talking. i agree that that can be a very mafia thing to do (i'm wary of how specifically spiffy did something like that in some mafia) but that shouldn't mean we should let people who don't talk enough off with a free pass

I'm not; my issue is more with how prevalent it is more than the fact that it exists itself. Sure, some of it is town motivated, but I get more and more sure that there's scum motivation there somewhere every time it pops up.

2. talking about non-scum things isn't bad, what the no lynch situation, sestup spec, von/moi stuff should do is give people ideas as to who is mafia/village. personally i think the moi/von argument was a huge discussion stifler for the reason that it was unnecessarily prolonged, but in any case, those situations should give people room to talk and from there develop opinions on scum/mafia.

This is true (and I can definitely sympathize with the discussion stifler comment, but I don't think that was really the case here. I think whatever effect that had has been fully recovered by this point), but those topics are fairly static and mostly useful as stepping stones towards other topics... which you said right there. The problem is that I haven't seen a whole lot of that in my readthrough of the game. Yes, moi and you got pushed earlier in the game, but a lot of the pushes have been on lurkers for the most part.

i'm not sure i understand what "pushing players not involved to go down the same path" means (as in, in being splintered? it's bad if everyone thinks exactly the same way).

That was bad wording. I was referring to pushing those players to add to the intensity of the situation to make it less likely for it to dissipate.

why would less active players be less likely to form town consensus? isn't that good? i feel like either i or you are mistaking "town consensus" for "getting enough votes for a lynch." I think it's pretty obvious the latter is very important, but I don't think the former is important at all.

You were, but that was an error in communication. I was talking about the unified town block situation I mentioned before; less active players aren't as likely to push town together since they're posting less. If you have two players trying to create a unified town voting block, the player who has 30% of the game's posts and spends all of those posts directly trying to lead players to townread each other and unify their opinions is going to be a lot more likely to be successful than someone who posts only once a day, even if they're much longer posts.

 

[sunny004]

why

why not
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[rssp1]

last post was @ celever

"mainly because they get confused by a lot of the stuff that goes on/they feel that their opinion isn't as valid or that is doesn't carry much weight/they feel that what they're thinking is probably wrong and they don't want to screw others over by stating tha"

think about how a beginner player would feel if they were mafia and it's this x10. of course, i think my statement is v. broad, i think that post content is much more insightful in terms of mafia v village for beginners.

I guess, but wouldn't both players still lurk/be quiet? That's the part I disagree on - that scum beginners will be quiet while town beginners will be quiet, but less so. if town beginners are less quiet, the difference isn't very much... If we're both saying the same thing, though, then i'll feel stupid for arguing the same point you were making. I agree that post content is a better thing to analyze, and I guess in that sense I kinda understand your point.

The opinion was that town shouldn't no lynch; it's a pretty static stance. Suddenly getting cold feet and asking other players which side is the better choice after a conversation about role PMs being sent via RNG instead of being chosen on purpose is a really weird thought process to have.

Turns out that I read the posts backwards. Awkward. I guess that somewhat makes sense, but I'm leaning towards the idea that BT was doing what I generally do and trying to get input on his ideas. I also don't think his post was in relation to the current conversation, and that he was just continuing what he had said before.

sunny004 , ok, good to hear. Are the reasons you think those three are scummy the reasons mentioned by others, or do you have something else? If it's something else, it'd be important for everyone to know.

 

[sunny004]

Also if anyone has asked me any questions before this and I haven't answered them I probably did not see them. Tag me in a post or something and I can answer them 4 u

 

[JALMONT]

why do those three people seem scummy to you

 

[Amianki]

ButteredToast

Okay, let's start with this:

What are your current reads? All of them. I don't specifically want reasons right now, just reads.

 

[sunny004]

1) Spiffy has changed lynch targets 6 times on this fine D1. It could be routine scum hunting, him trying to throw Celever under the bus (I think 3 of his votes were on him), or trying to cast confusion among the town. Then again, I haven't had the time to read all of the walls of text on the past 8 pages so that could just be me.

2) Idk why I said Celever tbh, probably because he voted me ),: Jalmont has been all over the place so he seems kinda susp. Too.

3) Cancerous for the reasons stated above. I have had time to read those :D