Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Percy]

Confirming. Good to go.

[Percy]

We could have two mafia families and an SK... if that's true, then the scum must number at least 5...

[Percy]

My vote on Scheher is non-random

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

I think scum would be more likely to say this than town, and I'm surprised nobody seems to agree.

I agree. The defence seems to be that he was pointing out that there could be an insane doc, but I feel that was not the point of his post. At the very least, it would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track, with townies trying to figure out who the Doc-That-Kills-People-And-Doesn't-Know-It-Yet is rather than who the scum are.

Vote: Scheherazade

[Percy]

I listed the reasons for making the post (hint: there were two...). If you don't like them, I've no right to force you. But it's obnoxious that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

I read your reasoning. I understand your defence. I'm just not convinced.

Your post reads like a rolefishing post and, as people have gone to great lengths to demonstrate, this is a bad idea. And then you posted twice more, going into detail. Even worse idea.

This is my first ever game of mafia, and my inexperience is something I'm very aware of. If someone voted for me for something called 'rolefishing', I'd try and find out about rolefishing and come to the inevitable conclusion that it's a

bad idea

. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your claim of inexperience works

against

you in this instance - either you're scum, or you're charging around (while being both rude and dismissive) without first researching your best possible moves.

Just in case it's the latter, I'm going to

Unvote

and

FoS:Scheherazade

instead.

[Percy]

Who could have killed the scum player,

out of curiosity?

Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

This doesn't seem like a warning. This seems like an attempt to start a conversation about who could have killed the scum player, and a happy side effect was that an insane/CPR doc scenario would be talked about.

Role fishing for scum is scum-hunting, isn't it? And identifying the serial killer, if we have one, benefits town because he's going to kill us, too.

This indicates to me that you think role fishing is a good idea.

Further,

Mostly

it was to point out to any doctors who may have defended one of the deceased that they might not be entirely sane. It doesn't

require

that they role-claim, just that they consider the possibility that they're insane before they go about protecting town.

Emphasis mine. This doesn't indicate to me that it wasn't rolefishing. It indicates to me that it's a good rolefish. You've a very good reason why you'd ask it aside from any rolefishing agenda (but if everyone started talking about it the scum would get lots of info) - you're just spreading the word! Mostly.

Sorry, I thought (only of?) the advantage (was?) in alerting possible insane/CPR doctors to their condition and (also?) the advantage (was?) given by trying to open up the game, so that we don't all assume something.

Without my insertions, you haven't constructed your sentence properly. It has two possible meanings, I think, which I've indicated with my suggestions. Feel free to correct me.
With the first option, you're saying "whoops, I didn't mean to rolefish". That's what I thought you meant until you posted this:

This is true: I've played before in real life.

Hence, I thought your claim to experience was sound, thus the second reading of the above. Hence the vote.

If you really wanted to warn people, I'd imagine it would go something like this:

Just had an idea - perhaps one of the kills was a doctor killing someone, either on purpose or by accident. If you are a doctor, please think about what happened and how that could be used for us. If you're not, please be aware of this in the future. Let's not talk about this, though, to avoid rolefishing.

But that's not what we got. If you're a smart, experienced mafia player who just wanted to inform people without any rolefishing, your post would have looked a lot more like the one above.

You then posted this:

I think the biggest source of confusion over my post is the use of the word "who." By "who," I meant, "what faction/role" as clearly evidenced by the following sentence, where I list possible "who"s.

If, however, you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading

, you might stop at the word "who" and assume that I meant "what player or players" by saying "who."

...

But it's obnoxious

that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

I wasn't confused by this point by whether you meant who or what faction or role. You just wanted to talk about crazy doctors, and I think that is rolefishing. Also, dismissive parts bolded. It's really not that I'm offended, it just seems like you're not willing to defend yourself with logic, you're just trying to intimidate me.

As for the red herring argument, it's obvious that such a search would be useless. Only idiotic townies would ignore scum-hunting for the sake of identifying a town power role, which can only really be done to a certainty by the power role himself. In order for a diversion effectively influence people, it has to seem more tantalising than their original object.

Again, what I hear is "This plan would not give definitive proof". The fact that another townie said this:

have I missed something or is their a reason why insane doctor has even been mentioned yet

might indicate to you that your plan simply (or at least mostly) to "alert the people and not have it be talked about" had failed. Not only that, you say it can't be done to a certainty; well, of course that's true. This is mafia. Again, you say it would be an ineffective plan, but that doesn't mean it wasn't rolefishing.

And then,

Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish

bluntly

in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

... are you saying that "since everyone knows" it's a bad idea to conduct blunt rolefishing on the first post,

ipso facto

it

can't

be blunt rolefishing, and to claim otherwise means you're not reading the posts? That's quite a leap of logic right there! And even then, that doesn't preclude the situation where you're just conducting

subtle

rolefishing in the

guise

of informing the town in a way that suggests you're

just starting a conversation

.

Anyway, the point of the post was to say "I'm not a complete newb to mafia, so don't let any inexperience argument sway you."

And that's it. You know what you're doing. The plan was mostly (but only mostly) not about rolefishing. All attempts to convince me that it

couldn't have been at all

about rolefishing have failed - it could have been a very subtle catalyst of a gigantic rolefish. You also know that only scum rolefish, and want all of us to believe it too. Putting that all together is a bad combination for you.

I thought I'd pull back for a bit, but I need a better explanation than any you've given me. Perhaps in your bluster to save your ego you have overstepped, in which case you need to get over it, admit you were wrong and get on with serving the town rather than yourself.

Vote: Scheherazade.

[Percy]

I know what sort of person Percy is.

Ha!

Here's my vote post:

My vote on Scheher is non-random

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

I think scum would be more likely to say this than town, and I'm surprised nobody seems to agree.

I agree. The defence seems to be that he was pointing out that there could be an insane doc, but I feel that was not the point of his post. At the very least, it would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track, with townies trying to figure out who the Doc-That-Kills-People-And-Doesn't-Know-It-Yet is rather than who the scum are.

Vote: Scheherazade

See that? I'm accusing you of rolefishing in the guise of talking about set up. I'm saying that your tactic would make people attempt to identify who the doctors are, not just their existence, in that it would make people talk about doctors and their powers. Clues and tells could fall out, aiding the scumteam.

My next post goes on to continue that theme. And the next one. Stop trying to make me sound inconsistent without better evidence.

I'll use an analogy. It's akin to me asking "Who believes in limited government? Republicans and Libertarians come to mind" and someone saying "This seems like an attempt to start a conversation about people's political beliefs."

Indeed. Perhaps the conversation would turn to the differences between Libertarians and Republicans. And then we'd go into depth about Libertarian reasoning, and what people know about Libertarians. If you were a Libertarian and were trying to conceal it, this would be a dangerous conversation for you. It's a scum tactic, in my mind, to get people to talk about their roles. As I quoted in my PBPA, I gave you an example of how to inform but not start rolefishing. You didn't do that. You decided to combine the goals of "inform" and "talk about setup" together, which is a bad move - I think it's rolefishing.

Scheherazade wrote:
Sorry, I thought the advantage in alerting possible insane/CPR doctors to their condition and the advantage given by trying to open up the game, so that we don't all assume something [outweighed the risks].

(Note: I've had a fever of 103F and I can't shake it. For that reason, I've been omitting words from my sentences by mistake. However, my problem is with omissions, not with writing things for no reason. So, Percy, don't use it as an excuse to disregard entire sentences and posts.)

I did not disregard anything. Your clarification is exactly the same, in meaning, to my second reading. Also, check out how you acknowledged that it was risky, because it could lead to rolefishing,

and that you knew about it before you did it

.

Also, would you mind if I use the "I have a fever" excuse to get you to read my post in the way that you want me to sometime later in the game? How could I know about your illness? Your argument is ridiculous.

If you call what I was doing role-fishing, then you must admit that I was role-fishing for mafia as well as pro-town. If I were role-fishing for mafia, then it was equally pro-town because it was scum-hunting as well as role-fishing.

I agree that you were looking for personal comments on who had what roles. Your post works much better as a scum rolefish than a town one, simply because "I bet the mafia or a serial killer did it!" is going to illicit zero response, but "I bet an insane doc or a vigilante did it!" is going to start some conversations. Putting the two together doesn't excuse you. Your post was not both pro- and anti-town, it was just plain anti-town.

What it comes down to is that you did not trust the player base to make good decisions, so you wanted to warn them. Your warning was poorly formulated and was in fact rolefishing. As you keep insisting that you

didn't

make a mistake, I conclude that you're scum.

With my first reading, I was trying to interpret your poorly formed sentence. I know what your "sorry meant", and yes, it was very clear from the context who you were apologising to and what you were apologising for. You claim that the first reading was wrong, and have confirmed that the second is in fact true. This is a non-issue.

He thinks it's an ego thing and it seems to me like he's trying to punish me for being "egotistical" in saying "I've played before in real life."

I think you're egotistical because you're overly aggressive, overly defensive, dismissive and rude. I think you're experienced, because you've claimed to be experienced ever since someone brought it up. Linking me to a dictionary (and a broken link at that)? Don't be a jerk.

Furthermore, Der Hammer asked a question that could have been answered by reading the thread. It's silly to say that my post was the reason why he asked a question with an obvious answer.

You brought up the subject. He talked about it. I don't know how much clearer it could get.

If you are scum and decided that you wanted to try rolefishing, I think the

plan

you employed is good because it's a subtle rolefish. Even now, most people are not convinced, you've got a lot of cover and probably won't get lynched. It might not give you

good results

, it might even be rather ineffective at giving you results, but it

could

give you results if it worked just right. Worth a try, perhaps.

It's true that I voted for you after strife pointed out that you were rolefishing. I didn't have a clear idea of what it was,

because I'm inexperienced

, so I did some reading and came to the conclusion that strife was right, and that rolefishing was bad. (As an inference) from this fact or circumstance; from these premisses [sic] or data; for this reason; therefore, the vote.

I think you might have simply made a mistake, but your dogged insistence that you didn't means my vote stays were it is.

And finally, I don't think the "everyone's misreading me but I won't say how" "I'm too awesome to defend myself" "here's a link to a dictionary" "no-one reads my posts and that makes anyone who disagrees with me STUPID" arguments you've been making are productive

at all

. You're not being co-operative, you're not helping the town and that makes me even more suspicious.

[Percy]

I was considering doing another epic analysis post, but I think a concise summary of my position will be better for everyone.

What my argument boils down to is this:

1. Scheherazade's first post was anti-town.
2. He might have not realised just how anti-town people thought it would be, or it might have been a scum move.
3. He is being hyper-defensive about it, rather than just apologising for a stupid move.
4. The way he's been defending himself is more about getting me to shut up than to give the town an explanation - he's been rude, arrogant and ambiguous.
5. My suspicions of his scummy nature are far more informed by the way he's responded to my arguments than the initial anti-town move.

If he's Town, I cannot understand why he's continuing to argue with me in such an unhelpful way. I don't think his posts clear his name - in fact, I think they do the opposite. They just accuse people of not reading his posts correctly, call me stupid and defend bad tactics. Some of his posts have been composed of fever-induced non-sentences, and my attempts to clear up this ambiguity have been labelled "ad hominem attacks on his credibility". In reality, I was trying to figure out what he meant, and was ending up confused every time. Again and again he lashes out, when he could have nipped this all in the bud a long time ago. It would have been the best thing for the town if he had just moved on.

So the fundamental question is this: Is Scheherazade scum? Or is he just someone who is more concerned with clearing his name without losing face, to the detriment of the town? Either way, I think he's not helping anyone but himself.

That's why my vote is staying where it is.

[Percy]

Scheherazade,

Apparently, I'm the kind of person who you shouldn't argue with. To address my arguments, to argue with me, is a waste of time. I'm not reasonable,

because of who I am

. You've been arrogant, rude and hostile the entire time I was asking for an explanation which you've refused to give. I feel like my arguments have been dismissed by you without any engagement using ad hominem tactics.

Are you honestly trying to claim you've been a nice, objective, helpful pro-townie the whole way?

Vi asked you for a summary two days ago of your position,

to help the town

. Your defence has been that everything I said was a bunch of verbage, and is better off ignored. You have posted

four times

since that initial request, including a "do I really have to?" post.

Why don't you want people to know what your position is? Whilst some players have made the valiant effort of reading through everything (and have come to the same conclusion as me, I might add), but some people haven't, and possibly won't. Have you decided that it's better to keep those people in the dark? If so, why?

[Percy]

Indeed, time for me to weigh in on the whole game. Just did a re-read, and here are my opinions and questions.

Scheherazade: My opinion of him has been made abundantly clear. He has accused me of not asking questions to try and conduct a 'proper investigation', but I feel I spotted something scummy and pressed hard. I don't know whether he's just an argumentative, unhelpful townie or actually scum, but as others have said, at the very least he's unhelpful in the extreme. His investigation of Jazzmyn seems artificial and just as riddled with logical inconsistencies as his defense against my accusations.

al4xz: Voted for Juls, in an attempt to pull off a rather strange move. Also he said this:

everything dictates that Scheh is ... a skilled Mafia player who did a good job hiding his true intentions behind the mask of a Townie. Scum."

...then FoSed him, voted for him later, and now he's unvoted. I'm suspicious of him due to this inconsistency and the aforementioned strange move. I will ask the question:

@al4xz: If you were so convinced early on of Scheherazade's guilt, why did you Unvote? What changed your mind from such a strong position to such an uncertain one?

TAX: Had a changing random vote, and gave little justification of suspicions whenever he did vote, and now he's not voting at all and is possibly inactive. I find inactivity just as suspicious as stupid activity.

@TAX: Please get involved and weigh in here, I don't like how you might be trying to fly under the radar.

Der Hammer: Erratic and confusing strategies that are bad for the town. He even described the attempts to put pressure on him as 'clear scumtells'. Doesn't read sarcasm in others' posts, but has used the 'I was only kidding' defense himself. Relevant game quotes:

"That's the sort of reaction I was probing for" never actually had meaning at all

I reacted badly to your initial misjudging of my statement and acted childishly. It end of esuclated from there really, and its interesting to see who has jumped on my bandwagon..

He's OMGUS'd, claimed when he was nowhere near being lynched, and told us that we should look elsewhere rather than try to find something out of his posts.

Now he's asking us to lynch Scheherazade and give him a free pass, just because he says he's a townie (!).

Whilst Scheherazade has been extremely unhelpful, I think Der Hammer is a greater liability and has made more mistakes, and most importantly, is more difficult to read and keep tabs on: he's tried to make some of his posts 'real posts' and others 'not count' due to "hidden" humour or sarcasm.

It's very, very close, but I think it's marginally more likely that Scheherazade is just an unhelpful townie than Der Hammer. I'm therefore going to

Unvote

Vote: Der Hammer

Entire body of susipicion: Scheherazade

[Percy]

This is actually misleading so I must take issue. If you look back I have only readdressed my "comedy" posts when someone has asked me to clarify. Your post makes it look like I have backtracked and said that those posts were jokes of my own accord. A small point, but a point nonetheless.

And a point that is against you, I feel. How can we trust anything you say, if we first have to ask if you're being serious about every post you make?

[Percy]

*Rises from the dead with New Age Powa!*

Sorry guys, I just finished Honours yesterday (!), so I've been celebrating and away from the computer. Glad to be back!


al4xz - I find him quite suspicious. I don't like his defenses that seem to try and do two things at once: say what he did was a mistake, and claim that because he made a mistake, he can't be scum.

On the al4xz/Gerrendus discussion, ribwich said:

If Scheh were town, I don't think they would have been making those comments. I don't even think they would have bothered changing their vote, since a lynch on either Scheh or Der would have essentially been the same. Why risk getting more attention on yourself unless you were protecting your partner?

...and I completely agree.

It honestly seems to me like one of Gerrendus and al4xz rushed the lynch on Der Hammer to protect Scheherazade. Two of Sche's biggest critics (myself and strife) were then executed in the night.

And let's not forget al4xz's 'Slayer's Gambit' yesterday:

I was trying to act like a scummy guy so you would make a bad reaction and try to push the shit to me.

Overall, I think that al4xz is making a lot of 'mistakes' and 'bad plays' that seem to benefit the scum, and happen to protect Scheherazade at the same time.

My suspicions of Scheherazade were heightened when I got shot. I really don't know whether my death was because scum wanted to make Sche look bad, or if they wanted me to stop attacking one of their own. strife220 also believed Sche was scum, and he died too.

There has been a lack of discussion on this matter, so I'll ask the question: Do you guys think strife220 and I were killed to make Sche look bad? Because we suspected Sche, who is scum? Or some other reason?

As for Scheherazade's 'investigation' of Jazzmyn, I think it's just distracting and wasting our time. He picks apart every post of hers, taking things out of context, misreading things and trying to trap her when there really isn't any justification for this level of scrutiny. One of the biggest indicators that he isn't trying to help the town is that his posts are so LONG - it's not like he has a convincing argument against Jazzmyn, so his posts go forever even though he *knows* that most people won't read it, trying to find evidence where there just isn't any. I'm sure the same argument could be levelled at me for my behaviour towards Sche yesterday (even though I would disagree), but the point is this - I don't think anyone could be so squeaky clean as to give Sche

absolutely no grounds

to push harder. I feel like he's just randomly picked someone and is

determined

to find her guilty. Frankly, he's wasting our time with this over-examination, and no-one is convinced.

I'm going to

Vote: Scheherazade

. I feel that both Scheherazade and al4xz are very likely scum, but I'd like to keep them both alive for a little longer to see if any more evidence of their guilt and/or co-operation falls out rather than put al4xz at L-1. Don't want someone else making a 'mistake' and denying us info.

[Percy]

I stand by my suspicions of Scheherazade. I don't think he's playing pro-town. He didn't yesterday (and even admitted it), and has been engaged in the same behaviour today.

I was suspicious of Sche and DH yesterday, and settled on DH. Scheherazade hasn't changed his behaviour, and all the reasons I was suspicious of him yesterday still stand.

Scheherazade can redeem himself in my eyes if he stops posting long, aggressive posts that don't mount proper arguments against anyone. If he starts posting in such a way that the majority of people read his posts AND they're constructive, then that would be nice.

As for al4xz, I feel that the 'accidental' lynch of DH when Sche was in danger is enough to justify the (mild) suspicion of an al4xz/Sche pairing. I know I was constructing an argument against Sche here, but al4xz is still high on my scumdar.

[Percy]

Second, no, I haven't felt like I've been a helpful pro-townie because I spent time posting unread replies to the posts you made against me.

Not only do you say you haven't been helping the town, you also say that reading and making long posts wastes town time. If your play style is to make these long posts, doesn't that strike you as anti-town behaviour, in the same way you singled out mine? To be more precise, doesn't that make anyone who reads your post anti-town, by the same logic?

I think your posting style (aka behaviour) is to make long posts that don't help the town. This would help you to fly under the radar (as many players would dismiss your posts as tl;dr) whilst appearing active if you were scum. I believe you might be scum because of how you reacted to the drama yesterday, and how the 'rolefishing' argument progressed.

Your explanatory vote regarding the Jazzmyn investigation:

I think Jazzmyn's scummy for not scum-hunting, voting on emotion, allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched, agreeing often with others but not adding much content, and avoiding questioning.

Upon doing a thorough re-read of your investigation, I must admit that it's perked my interest. I'm just begging you to stop with the line-by-line nitpicking and consolidate your investigation so that anything you say can't be so easily dismissed as a bunch of misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

Perhaps I was too hasty, and emotion seems to have clouded my judgement. I'm willing to back off and reconsider.

Unvote

, for now.

[Percy]

Related to the investigation, do you feel that there's anything that could be addressed in my case against Jazzmyn? Anything I've exaggerated too much or ignored?

I think Jazzmyn has been light on the scumhunting, and it's good that you pointed that out. As for jumping on bandwagons without providing content and avoiding investigation, I think there might be something there, but I'd like to hear from you. As for voting on emotion and 'allowing' the lynch, I am very unconvinced.

Regarding my vote for Sche rather than al4xz:

If you are so convinced of their guilt and potential cooperation, your apprehension is a bit strange.

I wanted to investigate the al4xz/Sche pairing. With one dead, that would be more difficult. I also wanted to hear from Jazzmyn before the end of the day.

I agree with Vi's analysis of Sheherazade's investigation. It's perked my interest, as I said, but I also agree that the best thing is to wait for Jazzmyn to respond.

As for Puta Puta, I can't make heads or tails of it. Is it stupidity? Is it some crazy way to try and save al4xz by pushing him to L-1 for bad reasons? Is it a scum move to try and remove a townie? I have no idea. Please post a better reason, Puta.

Also, mod, I

Unvote

d in #392.

[Percy]

alx4z needs to give us an answer.

I would like an answer from you. Why did you put your vote on alx4z?

^^^I would also like to know this.

My suspicions of Jazzmyn are somewhat alleviated for the time being, but I would like to see her scumhunt rather than just defend herself. Sche, are there any questions that she still hasn't answered that you want answered?

[Percy]

I want to hear from al4xz, liek,

nao

.

Puta, behaving like this

will

get you lynched. It's really anti-town play. If you're a townie, you're hurting us with this erratic, unreasoned play style. Either play seriously, or don't play. Don't take us down with you.

Vote: Puta Puta

[Percy]

Either scummiest or the most anti-town Townie ever.

PP pushed against al4xz at a critical point in our investigation of him. He(?) then proceeded to give no explanation for his behaviour, and when pressed contradicted himself. The reply? No defence or explanation, just:

oh shit i contradicted myself, lol

Sounds to me like scum caught in a lie and who doesn't really care about the game. I'm almost certain there will be no explanation forthcoming from him about this or any other issue, just evasions.

I thought to myself that this was the same sort of analysis that I applied to the Der Hammer case yesterday, and I was wrong about his alignment in the end. I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong about this too, but just as Der Hammer's posting style was scummy, so is Puta's. It's distracting, confusing, disruptive, and gives the town no information, at all.

[Percy]

Claim, contribute or die.

See above.

[Percy]

That concludes the first game I played on MS, and I died twice! Thanks everyone for the game. Also, well done Vi for a game well played, I really wasn't suspecting you at all until Day 5!