Mafia 90-Lolwat? Mafia, Game Over, Mafia Win

[Litral]

/confirm.

[Litral]

We're back!

[Litral]

After consulting the Grand Priest of Yoshis, I decide to bandwagon

vote: Empking's Alt

.

[Litral]

It seems that my bandwagon vote has provoked a most revealing discussion.

[Litral]

It seems that my bandwagon vote has provoked a most revealing discussion.

This wasn't your main intention?

In fact, the other alternative is that I am so ignorant of scumhunting basics that I bandwagoned someone I could not possibly have had a read on AND declared this as my motive.

[Litral]

I think anti-discussion is only a scummy mistake if it's intentional.

[Litral]

I was focusing on the "scummy" part. Saying something that is not correct is not scummy if it's not intentionally incorrect.

[Litral]

I think anti-discussion is only a scummy mistake if it's intentional.

I was focusing on the "scummy" part. Saying something that is not correct is not scummy if it's not intentionally incorrect.

how can you tell if it's intentional?

I cannot tell. That is exactly why I have not voted MafiaSSK, just pushed him a bit.

I don't see what rofl sees.

SC, that is a very strange FoS.

[Litral]

What I would like to point out is that while misunderstanding once or twice is not a scumtell, doing it a lot implies "pretending to express opinions while actually not wanting to do so", which is a good scumtell. And StrangerCoug borders on that amount.

[Litral]

I know you guys keep mentioning me somehow, but I stopped reading the argument when people started talking about misunderstanding the misunderstanding of misunderstandings... Is there any question directed at me or my comments?

Lowell's opinion is exactly mine I got weak scum vibes from StrangerCoug earlier (because of all the strange misunderstandings and several rather pointless posts), but they have not amounted to anything.

So...

unvote, vote: Numberfourteen

. Hey. Speak up.

[Litral]

Numberfourteen, that opinion of roflcopter is not a weak opinion at all. It is the sort of thing we would like to hear.

Unfortunately for you, because of that, I'm going to keep my vote.

[Litral]

Litral, please explain your last post as being anything but purely scummy? If a lurker suddenly makes a pro-town post, why would you attack him for it?

First of all, I never said it was pro-town, I said it was something we wanted to hear, and we want to hear scumtells, don't we? I also said it was a well thought-out opinion. The lurker should've made it a long, long time ago, not right after two people vote him for lurking. This means to me that Numberfourteen has been reading along and does have something to say, but refrained from saying it without pressure - which is a scumtell.

... please, this is the second time in this game someone has depicted me as some sort of jester.

[Litral]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester? I'm not dismissing anything, though - I might be this really stupid player who does all those scummy things for fun, so I am still arguing.

I don't think the chances of someone having to leave the game and come back right after being voted is high. I do not take this into account because the probability is low.

I never said Numberfourteen's opinion of roflcopter is scummy in itself. I don't need to know whether it's scummy or townie - I just think that if Numberfourteen really had this opinion as a town-sided figure, he more likely would have expressed it earlier. Therefore, he is more likely to be scum-sided.

[Litral]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester?

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort. I don't see either, but #162 is heavily noted. As in on 10,000 pieces of paper.

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

[Litral]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester?

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort. I don't see either, but #162 is heavily noted. As in on 10,000 pieces of paper.

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

That's partly why I don't see your post as a bussing gambit.

Then why did you even say this:

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort.

Since you're not actually offering an alternative?

... oh, and just in case anyone misunderstands, I'm not actually claiming jester or that I'm acting scummy on purpose.

[Litral]

Litral, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that number's post was not-pro-town to avoid one accusation and then turn around and say it wasn't scummy to avoid another. You clearly have an opinion on his post. You give two more evasive answers, the "jester" comment, and the new counter accusation on the bus comment. You really haven't done anything to clear your name.

The "jester" comment was entirely a comment out of frustration that you're accusing me both of being scum and of being very stupid and the bus comment was StrangerCoug's, to which I replied. The other parts of my post was the actual argument, which both you and SC seem to have ignored.

Either that, or you do not understand my argument at all, so I'll repeat it in clearer terms. I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

contained inside the post is scummy. The opinion and the post itself are two different things. Why? Because his

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

under which it was made. The situation is that two people voted him for lurking and he immediately comes out with an opinion that should have been expressed earlier if he was pro-town. This is the sort of thing scum more often do than town, which is why I kept the vote on him.

[Litral]

SC: Like I said, you're focusing on the wrong part. The jester comment contains no arguments. I can never argue that GnKoichi's accusation was wrong because it made me look like a jester - but I can argue it is a little frustrating. That's exactly what I meant.

[Litral]

Well, I'm afraid I have absolutely nothing to add to your accusations towards me, since I already explained myself and you felt it meant no sense. It was perfectly sensible to me, but I guess that's because I'm some sort of stupid idiot who bandwagons after publicly declaring it, and votes someone because they made a good post.

Also, for actually considering that me being a jester is a good argument:

unvote, vote: vino

I guess that's all I can do for this game.

[Litral]

Litral, I'd really like to hear your answer to my questions in post 182 (and Coug's post 181 is a good read as well). What could numberfourteen have done after your vote that wouldn't have looked bad in your eyes?

Sure, why not.

Coug's on to the heart of it here. The original sin in this line of problems is your vote against a lurker when there had been no attempt to get him involved before hand. He got a little lost in the shuffle, which is understandable with the confusing arguments that were going on. When he DID get involved, you say it's bad timing. Would it have been LESS scummy for him to not respond at all and let himself get replaced? Once you voted for him, what WOULDN'T have been scummy in your eyes?

1) Actually, yes, it WOULD be less scummy if he did not respond and we discovered that he simply wasn't here (although I am of course not suggesting that one should do so); but all evidence points to him lurking while reading. He posted

three hours

after Lowell voted him - if that isn't suspicious timing, what is it?

Oh, and claiming to be lost is also a scumtell.

2) I'm not sure what your second question means. An explanation as to why he wasn't here, good enough to show that he wasn't just lurking while reading, would take off a big part of my suspicions. As it stands, he has offered no explanations, and continues to lurk.

And if you think his opinion is pro-town, why not lay off the lurker and help push the scum hunt on someone like rofl?

Again, and again, I never said his opinion is pro-town. I said his opinion is worth noting.

I don't think rofl is scum, that's why. Numberfourteen's lurk-posting was the one scumtell I caught and wanted to push. Was there a scum hunt on roflcopter? I don't see any.

Sorry, I don't think SC's 181 is a good read at all, but I'll respond to it.

I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

contained inside the post is scummy. The opinion and the post itself are two different things. Why? Because his

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

under which it was made. The situation is that two people voted him for lurking and he immediately comes out with an opinion that should have been expressed earlier if he was pro-town. This is the sort of thing scum more often do than town, which is why I kept the vote on him.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. As GnKoichi said, you and Lowell opted to vote a lurker in favor of asking the mod to prod him and analyzing the people actually posting content at the time. I rarely like lurker lynches as the mod will replace the lurker if it gets out of hand. Again, Numberfourteen could have had issues that prevented him from posting, and your failure to account for any that might exist is what drove me to vote you.

I see two arguments here against my vote for Numberfourteen, and my later comment that it should stay.

1) Lurker lynches are bad.

-- That is entirely debatable. Lurking itself is a scumtell. Even if replaced, the suspicion stays. I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree that voting lurkers make sense if no strong suspicions exist.

2) I did not take into consideration any issues that prevented Numberfourteen from posting.

-- What are the chances that Numberfourteen had issues that prevented him from posting, which were resolved exactly three hours after Lowell had posted - which, I might say, have once again appeared, since he's not posting any more? Extremely small.

---------

Okay, to anyone who's voting me, I'd like to ask you two questions.

1) Is a lurker who posts only under pressure suspicious?
2) Is Numberfourteen a lurker who posts only under pressure?

If your answer to the above questions are both to the affirmative, then you must admit that my vote against him made complete sense, and thus your accusations of me attacking a pro-town person fall apart. Otherwise, please explain why you would say they are not true, because the town deserves to know why you are voting me.

[Litral]

yos, we obviously disagree on a point of game theory. i think lurkerhunting is as good as lurking in plain sight, it allows one to remain active but take part in absolutely zero real scumhunting and interact negiligibly with anyone who will actually respond.

Eh; lurkerhunting is a neccessary thing for the town to do, though. If the town lets lurkers get away with lurking, then the town usually loses in endgame to a lurkerscum. I can find about a hundred examples of that...

personally, i find the best response to straight up lurkers is a good old mod prod request. active lurkers are a different story, but that is not what litral was after.

Okay, so roflcopter in particular is voting me for lurkerhunting, not for attacking a pro-town player. Which deserves an alternative response.

rofl, which part of my vote do you suspect? The initial vote for Numberfourteen, or the latter insistence that it should stay? Because only the first part is voting someone for merely lurking - the second part is voting someone for both lurking and only responding to pressure.

I might remind you that Lowell also voted Numberfourteen for lurking; so why aren't you saying anything about him?

[Litral]

I can't believe so many of you are still accusing me of attacking someone who I declare as pro-town at the same time. Because that is both a great misunderstanding and at some level a huge insult.

Oh, and for God's sake stop mentioning the jester! There is no jester when you are scumhunting! I said it because of frustration, not as an actual argument!

[Litral]

I'm back (sorry, classes & homework & lack of motivation to post in a game where people consider me an idiot), re-read a bit, will finish within 12 hours and post something good, hopefully.

One opinion for now - I really don't want us to dwell on the masonry so much on Day 1. Since it seems likely some of them are scum, claiming mason with no pressure is just as good as claiming blue - i.e. bad for the town and good for the scum. Outing a mason is even worse. I see little point in arguing over the masonry when it will give the scum excellent ideas on who to kill.

[Litral]

I'm of the general opinion that claiming mason puts burdens on scum that they don't want.

Why is this? Because I'm not convinced at all. I hope you can explain, because it seems relevant to the current discussion.

@rofl: Can you give a list of people you've claimed to be definitely town? And what if one of them shows up as scum? Also, I would have to say you are indeed screwing around... start explaining your "oh it's so obvious" posts >.<

@Penguin: Uh, please explain why you outed all the masons.

The game has actually slowed down alot recently, looks like veryone got out thier opinions on the whole mason thing.
I'm going to go ahead and

Unvote

and

Vote: Penguins of the serengeti

I am pretty equally torn between PotS and Litral but PotS looks like the most likely to be voted to a lynch. Litrals last post has redeemed him slightly...

Uh... you're voting a person over another only because they're more likely to be lynched? (Not as if I'd like you to switch, personally, but I feel this deserves pressure)

Vino, you should probably claim. With a PM. You're at L-2, I think.

---

Okay, on the masons thing.

Apparently there are six masons, and it is considered likely that at least one of them is a scum mason. This is apparently based on the thought that if they are all town, then the town will easily win. First of all, this sort of thinking is slightly WIFOM, because maybe you really are all town and start lynching each other. Second of all, there could be many possibilities in which they are not masons aligned with the scum - such as they simply have their own win conditions.

Due to this, I will have to agree with Yos that outing them is not at all a good idea. Scum may not even know who the masons are - in fact, the chances are fairly likely. If I were a mason, I would wait a few days to see if the scum kill any of us in order to decide (with a certain probability) whether or not our identities have been revealed to the scum.

Also, perhaps the most important opinion - I agree that we should preferentially lynch masons. Now that they're outed, we know for sure the scum aren't going to kill them... so if there is indeed a scum mason among them, we need to root them out eventually. But not day one - the game seems too strange to decide on a strategy on day one.