Newbie 1034 - Mafia!!! (Game Over!)

[Guderian]

Did you read my post, and the post before it? It should be clear to you if you do. Are you not reading the game?

[Sundy]

@Guderian, I thought you were of the view that Implosion/Maluski were scum. Why are you going after Smitster now? Which of the Maluski/Smitster pair is more likely to be scum? (Btw, ignore the last paragraph of #336, I misinterpreted the way you wrote your analysis.)

I am going to bring Implosion to L-2 with a

VOTE: Implosion

.

@Implosion, since you believe Bvoigt and by extension believe that Withnail is good, you presumably believe that scum can be found among only 4 players (Guderian, Maluski, Sundy, Smitster). Who do you think is the scum-team and why?

[Smitster]

@ implosion, you say: "This means that after today, you'll either die or you'll be indefinitely roleblocked."

@ Guderian, you can't seem to make out what most are saying and now you resorting to personal attacks ... actually, being called an idiot by you is a compliment. This is my 3rd game here and I like the game but didn't really want to play again but gave it a shot. Personal insults seems to be the order of the day on this site.

[Guderian]

I was convinced it was maluski until smit returned with tunnel rage from day 1. Then I isoed him again. Have a quick read of his iso and point out the townie things in there, because I am having a hard time finding them myself.

Smit, I can usually only not make out what you are saying. Instead of finding a case for why I am scum, you use your entire #352 to rail against me. This is the only really interesting thing I find you have said recently:

@ implosion, you say: "This means that after today, you'll either die or you'll be indefinitely roleblocked."

Which I agree with.

[Parama]

Day 2 Vote Count #1

[2] implosion

- Guderian, Sundy

[1] maluski_cop

- implosion

[1] Guderian

- Smitster

[0] Withnail

-

[0] bvoigt

-

[0] Sundy

-

[0] Smitster

-

Not Voting (3): Withnail, bvoigt, maluski_cop

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch. Deadline is 01/04/11 at 2:30 PM CST.

[Smitster]

@ Guderian, who were you referring to in post #348, where you say "You don't explain what any of this means. Im not sure if youre calling me scum or not." You quoted someone other than me.

[implosion]

Did you read my post, and the post before it? It should be clear to you if you do. Are you not reading the game?

You're a little hard to read in general. Post 338 as well (since I posted between you and sundy, it looked like you were addressing me, which appeared odd.) Also, please answer the question.

@Implosion, since you believe Bvoigt and by extension believe that Withnail is good, you presumably believe that scum can be found among only 4 players (Guderian, Maluski, Sundy, Smitster). Who do you think is the scum-team and why?

Order of suspicion would go malsuki, Smitster, Guderian, Sundy (scum to town). So malsuki and Smitster.

I don't like malsuki's response to my case on him very much. It contains something that could be WIFOM, something that's essentially a lie, and an explanation that ignores what I was accusing him of.

Smit's last post is pretty much rolefishing (if the setup has a roleblocker/doc)... remember last game? Everyone was pretty much convinced that milo was town. He rolefished. He was scum. I'll do a thorough reread of him later, probably.

Yesterday, I liked Guderian's overall playstyle. He was aggressive, explained himself, and voted with impunity. Today, he's voting me on a case that, first of all, is based on a bogus analysis, second of all, relies on "Wanton bandwagoning" which is a blatant lie, and third of all, "little scum pointers" and "hedging my bets" which he provides no examples of. I'm on the fence with him because of his play today.

Which leaves Sundy as the least scummy. I'm probably gonna compare/contrast your play here with 1014 (he was scum) later, but it doesn't really feel the same to me.

"This means that after today, you'll either die or you'll be indefinitely roleblocked."

KEYWORD: either. bvoigt will either die (no roleblocker) or be indefinitely roleblocked (roleblocker).

[Smitster]

@ Implosion, how would I have ever been able to fish out a role? Any one of the 4 setups could still be in play but since I believe the cop claim, I feel it's probably one with a cop.

You are wrong (I'm going to edit your post with the way I see it): bvoigt will either die (could be a roleblocker or not) or be indefinitely roleblocked (roleblocker, which no one will know about 100% even if bvoigt claims to have been RB'ed). You are a solid second on my list and would vote you out if it comes to that.

[Guderian]

Smit, what would have to happen for it to "come to that"?

(by the way, If I quote somebody and its not you, I am definitely not referring to that particular person In my analysis.)

Imp, It anger me when people aren't open to change. When people are town, they are very fluid and organic in their votes, shifting constantly when new information comes up. When someone defies this, defends this point of view and says thats how town should play, I get incredulous. Either he doesn't want to acknowledge or shift his reads, or he's scum who thinks parking his vote is non-scummy. (which it isn't)

[implosion]

Imp, It anger me when people aren't open to change. When people are town, they are very fluid and organic in their votes, shifting constantly when new information comes up. When someone defies this, defends this point of view and says thats how town should play, I get incredulous. Either he doesn't want to acknowledge or shift his reads, or he's scum who thinks parking his vote is non-scummy. (which it isn't)

Assuming this is an answer to my question about your criticism on Smitster - why is this any reason to call him an idiot? Incredulity is a reason to call someone scummy, not an anti-town idiot... at least, that's how

you

make it sound. This also appears to sidestep the question of why calling someone an idiot is acceptable (even if you don't like how they play).

You are wrong (I'm going to edit your post with the way I see it): bvoigt will either die (could be a roleblocker or not) or be indefinitely roleblocked (roleblocker, which no one will know about 100% even if bvoigt claims to have been RB'ed). You are a solid second on my list and would vote you out if it comes to that.

If bvoigt dies, that means one of three things:
1) there is no RB or doc
2) there is a doc who was not on bvoigt (this shouldn't happen)
3) there is a doc and the scum correctly guessed who they are and roleblocked them

Considering the unlikeliness of options two and three, if bvoigt died I'd assume option one. In other words, the statement I made in no way indicates that I would have knowledge of a roleblocker. In fact, if the statement I made even indicates that there is a possibility that there is no roleblocker (which you have admitted), there's no reason to question it as me "seeming to 'know' that there is a roleblocker in this setup." Hence, this is a contradiction - attacking me for something that you think a statement I made makes me appear to know, while at the same time saying that the statement does not mean that I know that thing.

As for how that constitutes rolefishing (for all of this, I'm assuming bvoigt is legit) - if there is a roleblocker, there are 3 people that know this - 2 scum and a doctor. If you are town, you could be trying to find scum. If you are scum, you could be trying to find a doctor. If there is no roleblocker, then this entire conversation is irrelevant - both sides of it.

[bvoigt]

Sorry, guys...I've been meaning to do some thorough rereading, but I don't have time right now.

[Sundy]

@ implosion, you say: "This means that after today, you'll either die or you'll be indefinitely roleblocked."

Which I agree with.

You agree with Implosion's statement?

Then maybe you could answer Implosion's question in #331... this is the second time I've asked this.

[Guderian]

No. I am agreeing with smit where he stated implosion indicated that bvoigt could potentially be roleblocked, which is a small slip considering town doesn't know if there is a roleblocker.

[implosion]

Then maybe you could answer Implosion's question in #331... this is the second time I've asked this.

And this is the third time I've asked it. Size increased for visibility.

Also, I'd still really like this answered:

And also, why so vitriolic? Calling... someone, I'm not entirely sure who "anti-town, and an idiot" isn't going to get the town anywhere. All that that's guaranteed to do is inhibit people.

(the someone btw was Smitster)

And also, one more question - Guderian, why do you keep avoiding and/or sidestepping questions? Any particular reason? I'm pretty sure these aren't the only ones.

[Sundy]

Implosion was questioning Bvoigt's wisdom for role-claiming when he did, because now the power is useless. I don't see where he implied he knew there was a role-blocker, and I agree with his logic in post #359.

[Guderian]

I answered that shit already. READ THE NEXT POST SOMETIMES OK???

No. If he claims now, he eliminates the risk of counterclaiming, since then its 50/50 on scum, and clears another person. We are down to 5 people to lynch among, actually four from my point of view. He eliminates all the blah blah of pushing cases on him and W, and we can use this day to laser in on the four remaining people.

ILL FURTHER DEBATE THIS IN MD OR AFTER THE GAME. I THINK I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS. WHY DID YOU PURPOSELY AVOID THAT. IT WAS THE VERY NEXT POST #332.

[Withnail]

On the subject of voting analysis ... I don't like Guderian's voting pattern.
He's third onto the first bandwagon against City, at the start of the game.
Then he's fourth to join the Sundy bandwagon, at post 129.
He's second on the Xalxe wagon, which City then joined. Guderian steps off shortly after bvoigt leaves the wagon, i.e. when it's clear that the wagon is stalled.

You don't explain what any of this means. Im not sure if youre calling me scum or not.

I'm saying that your voting pattern looks opportunistic. As though you are voting for people who are most likely to be lynched, rather than voting for people who are most likely Mafia. I think that is suspicious. (I notice you cut out my 4th example from your quote.)


In addition, I think that taking an overly aggressive tone, insulting other players, and instructing people how to play are all anti-town behaviours. Behaviours can be anti-town without being suspicious, but I hope you will moderate your playstyle - for the good of the town.

[Smitster]

My first vote on Gud was for avoiding questions and this seems to be popping up again.

@ Gud, why you so angry and shouting, what's with all the hate? How could anyone think that my "parked" vote on you was scum? (or even considered as parking when I was not involved in the lynching of a suspected town). If in the unlikeliness that someone turns out more scummy to me I'll clearly change my vote. See below:

To answer you, we'll, if I can't get support for a lynch on you I wouldn't mind lynching Implosion. You today and Implosion tomorrow or visa versa.

@Implosion, nice explanation, much appreciated.

[Withnail]

No. If he claims now,

he eliminates the risk of counterclaiming

, since then its 50/50 on scum, and clears another person.

Could you explain the underlined part of this quote, please? I don't understand what your point is there.

I disagree with both the points you make about bvoigt's claim.
1. I disagree when you say that his claim was the right thing to do, and
2. I disagree when you say that we should not discuss whether it was the right thing to do

It seems to me important that we do the following:
a) work out whether it was a good thing to do, for the town
b) if the answer is no, we need to work out what bvoigt's motivation was, when he did it

If his claim is bad for the town, perhaps it can be explained in terms of his having good, pro-town motives. But perhaps it's not plausible to think he had pro-town motives here ... in which case his claim would look very suspicious.

We need to take account of bvoigt's experience of playing Mafia. And we need to find out whether he considered the

disadvantages

of the claim, which people have since pointed out.

Meanwhile his absence from this discussion is rather disconcerting, I'd say. And I don't understand your motive in wanting to shut down discussion of these points.

[bvoigt]

After Chkflip's self-vote, Guderian shouts out conspicuously in twilight:

I wanted to lynch City what the hell have you done. -________-

This looks very odd to me, given that his case on City wasn't particularly strong, and especially given that Guderian was voting for Xalxe/Chkflip up until 278. Why the loud protests? Perhaps he knew that Chkflip was a mislynch?

If you read chkflip's self-hammer post, it seems very obvious that he was a mislynch. And in response to your most recent post, I've already explained my motives for claiming. In the end, all that matters is if you believe my claim. Discussion of whether it was a good idea just distracts us from scumhunting.

(And seriously, I promise I'll have the catch-up post done within twelve hours.)

[Withnail]

in response to your most recent post, I've already explained my motives for claiming. In the end, all that matters is if you believe my claim. Discussion of whether it was a good idea just distracts us from scumhunting.

I think this is wrong. Discussion of whether it was a good idea

is

"scumhunting". It's just that you are the possible target of that scumhunting.

I'd like to know:
1. did you think about waiting until there was a wagon against me, before claiming? (Sundy's point in 326)
2. did you think about breadcrumbing your result instead of announcing it openly? (implosion's point in 331)
3. did you realise that you will probably be NK'd or RB'd as a result of coming forward, and so unable to use your power for the rest of the game? (implosion, 327)
4. did you realise that the Mafia now know the setup, as a result of your claim?

[Guderian]

Hello all,

My name is Conrad. For the last week and a half, I have been on vacation. During that time, my little brother saw fit to start using this account to play some game. Instead of not using this account, he has abused it.

I have just returned. I have read this game, and from what I can see, I would like to deeply apologize to all people playing this game. Instead of a game of mafia being what it should be, a fun gathering of like minded people, he-- and this account-- have turned it into a virtual cesspit.

I am greatly offended and saddened by what has happened here. Being courteous to your fellow man and woman, respectful, Is what I hold most dear in this world. This has been grievously violated.

I understand if you no longer want to continue having this account in the game. At this point, I can either replace out, be lynched, or whatever the players in this game may choose. Nothing excuses this behavior. Losing is one thing, being a dick totally another.

Thank you,

Conrad

[bvoigt]

in response to your most recent post, I've already explained my motives for claiming. In the end, all that matters is if you believe my claim. Discussion of whether it was a good idea just distracts us from scumhunting.

I think this is wrong. Discussion of whether it was a good idea

is

"scumhunting". It's just that you are the possible target of that scumhunting.

I'd like to know:
1. did you think about waiting until there was a wagon against me, before claiming? (Sundy's point in 326)
2. did you think about breadcrumbing your result instead of announcing it openly? (implosion's point in 331)
3. did you realise that you will probably be NK'd or RB'd as a result of coming forward, and so unable to use your power for the rest of the game? (implosion, 327)
4. did you realise that the Mafia now know the setup, as a result of your claim?

1. Yes, but I didn't want to waste time wagoning a townie. I thought it would be better to immediately narrow down the list of suspects.
2. If you mean a code, I figured either scum would catch on, or it would be too subtle to notice. If you just mean saying "I've decided Withnail is town," it was because people would wonder why I was changing my mind about my top scum read.
3 and 4. Yes, I realize those things, but IMO the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

@Guderian: that is...very bizarre. However, if you still want to play, I don't have a problem with it.

As you may have noticed, all of my top scum reads are dead, and have flipped town. Here are my current reads:

Guderian- On one hand, he's been hopping bandwagons, and seems to be linked to implosion (see below). On the other hand, his aggressive style seems less likely to be from scum, and it seems like there was a purpose behind many of his vote switches.

implosion- For some reason, I'm having trouble getting a read on implosion. I do agree with Sundy that he was very quick to move his vote off of Guderian in ISO #14-16.

maluski_cop- As Implosion mentioned, he's been tunneling on me. However, looking back at his case, it seems sincere. Early in the game, he said that "active lurkers, who post filler comments of little substance should definitely be lynch candidates" and he stuck to this by focusing on someone who was (in his opinion) active lurking.

Smitster- His top two suspects are Guderian and implosion, and the reasons just don't make sense to me. I don't think Guderian claimed scum, and I don't think Implosion said that he knows there is a roleblocker. It also seems like he is trying to stay behind the scenes, posting infrequently and without much content.

Sundy- I still have a town read on Sundy. He is providing solid analysis and good reasoning.

From towniest to scummiest:
Sundy
maluski_cop
Guderian
implosion
Smitster

VOTE: Smitster

[implosion]

implosion- For some reason, I'm having trouble getting a read on implosion. I do agree with Sundy that he was very quick to move his vote off of Guderian in ISO #14-16.

As I explained, that vote was for reactionary purposes.

As for Guderian, I'm a bit nonplussed but this does explain some things. I have no problem with him continuing to play.

[Guderian]

If anybody objects I will replace out. If not, I will reread and post my thoughts.