Mafia 74: Minimally Flavoured - Game over!

[Bookitty]

Kills can be blocked, Rishi, or protected against (even though we lost our doc, it doesn't mean there isn't a backup or other protective role). We don't really know with any certainty that this didn't happen.

It isn't relevant now, because any independent killer has (or should have) roughly the same goals as town at this point in the game.

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

Unvote: Panzerjager

I don't want to lynch any power roles. I'm don't like Bookitty's SK theory. Panzerjager has suggested a way for him to prove himself, so he is most likely telling the truth.

Panzer, why did you target CKD on night one?

[Kison]

]Kison is acting a little aggressive for my tastes.

Aggression in itself is not scummy. Aggression with poor logic is a different matter.

[Rishi]

]Kison is acting a little aggressive for my tastes.

Aggression in itself is not scummy. Aggression with poor logic is a different matter.

It's irrelevant, though. I believe your claim. I don't believe you're giving enough justification for your actions. For example, your unvote seems to contradict your previous vote. So, why?

[Elias_the_thief]

The Third Day Four Votecount:

Snaps the pirate - 3

(Panzerjager, Rishi, Xyzzy)

Panzerjager - 1

(Toaster Strudel)

Xyzzy - 0

Rishi - 0

Toaster Strudel - 0

Phate - 0

Kison - 0

Bookitty - 0

Vollkan - 0

Nobody - 5

(Phate, Kison, Vollkan, Snaps the pirate, bookitty)

With 9 alive it will take 5 to lynch. Deadline for today is VERY SOON, Sunday, April 13th, at 10 PM EST.

[Rishi]

So, with the deadline looming, does anyone have a better idea than Snaps?

[Bookitty]

I am dead set against Kison and Panzerjager deciding in thread who to investigate/vig and then doing so in tandem.

If there is only one scum roleblocker, as Panzer's plan assumes, then if the person decided on is town, we lose at least one and probably two townies, and waste our investigation. Scum have no reason to block the vig of a townie, and would probably block Kison "just in case".

Additionally, if there is only one scum roleblocker, he's on only one scumteam. I'll call the two scumteams Team A and Team B. If the target of these night actions is from Team A, and the roleblocker is on Team A, it's likely that Kison will be blocked (the scum would be dead tomorrow by investigation, so why take a chance?) and that Panzer will be nightkilled. This is the closest to Panzer's stated scenario.

But if the target of these night actions is from Team A, and the roleblocker is on Team B, then Panzer will not be blocked, and Kison is likely to be blocked "just in case" Kison investigated someone else. One scum dead, but the investigation, if not blocked, is wasted on a dead person.

But if we have two scum roleblockers, one each on Team A and Team B, then what? The target can't be on both teams, so on the target's team, the scum would roleblock Panzer to prevent the killing of their buddy; on the other team, Kison might be roleblocked "just in case", or in fact might not be. In any case, we can learn only one person's alignment, and that person is more likely than not already dead and thus their alignment already known.

Saying who the targets will be only gives the scum perfect advance warning of whether to roleblock or not. It seems much better to me that Kison and Panzer target their primary suspects, independently and without advance warning to the scum. Then if there's only one roleblocker, they will have to choose whether to prevent a nightkill or an investigation, without advance knowledge of whether the nightkill or the investigation would harm their team. If there are two, the chances are good that they will either choose the same target to roleblock or that they will guess wrongly about whether to roleblock at all.

If you see any flaws in my reasoning on this, please point them out.

@Rishi: You are voting Snaps. Why are you looking for a better idea?

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

I think we can rule out a SK in this game. We know from night one that we have three killing groups, but we have not had three kills in one night since. That means either at least one group has been blocked each night, or there is a limit to the kills for one group. As our cop has been blocked each night, and our doc was presumably protecting him, so it seems unlikely that kills were being blocked. It also seems unlikely that a serial killer would have a limit on kills, as this would make it almost impossible for him to accomplish his goal. The explanation that makes the most sense is that there are two mafia groups and a limited shot vig.
Bookittys suggestion that each scum group has a roleblocker doesn’t seem plausible, it would make the scum too powerful. I think one group probably has a blocker and the other group has some other role like a godfather or mafia doc.

So, with the deadline looming, does anyone have a better idea than Snaps?

So far the only argument against me is that I engage in “lurkerhunting”. That’s a pretty weak argument. I suggest a policy lynch of one the lurkers. They are hurting the game far more than I am. Also, like Panzerjager, I too believe one of them is probably scum.

[Rishi]

@Rishi: You are voting Snaps. Why are you looking for a better idea?

I'm not necessarily looking for a better idea. I'm just saying that, if no one has a better idea, then we should just lynch Snaps. I hate deadline lynches. You can't get as much info from them. I think everyone who is just spinning their wheels should say who they are willing to lynch at this point. We only have five days.

So far the only argument against me is that I engage in “lurkerhunting”. That’s a pretty weak argument. I suggest a policy lynch of one the lurkers. They are hurting the game far more than I am. Also, like Panzerjager, I too believe one of them is probably scum.

Who, specifically, do you suggest? I think that most of the players are participating now.

[Toaster Strudel]

A TWO-shot vig is a little bizarre. A one-shot vig, or a regular vig, but TWO shot???

[PJ.]

I don't know. I either want Snaps or Bookitty. I just am gut against her

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

Now that I'm inclining toward Panzer being innocent, I'm at a loss as to who to vote for. That is why I suggested a policy lynch. Both Phate and Xyzzy are serious lurkers so I would suggest one of them. I am also suspicious of Rishi and Xyzzy because they followed Panzer to form a bandwagon on me based on flimsy “evidence”. Seems pretty opportunistic. Rishi in particular doesn’t sound very convinced of my guilt and just seems to be following the others.

However, at this point I would support any lynch other than my own. If Panzerjager is correct about there being four scum left, with only 9 players left we have a 50/50 shot of hitting one of them. I’ll join what ever bandwagon forms.

[Bookitty]

I don't know. I either want Snaps or Bookitty. I just am gut against her

No offense, but your gut sucks. Do you have any case, or anything I could possibly defend myself against?

[Toaster Strudel]

Both Phate and Xyzzy are serious lurkers so I would suggest one of them. I am also suspicious of Rishi and Xyzzy because they followed Panzer to form a bandwagon on me...

I can help you with your problem. I actually think that Phate is scum.

unvote, vote: Phate

[Rishi]

Both Phate and Xyzzy are serious lurkers so I would suggest one of them. I am also suspicious of Rishi and Xyzzy because they followed Panzer to form a bandwagon on me...

I can help you with your problem. I actually think that Phate is scum.

unvote, vote: Phate

Why?

[Rishi]

Also, Bookitty, I would like to know who you are willing to lynch. Stalling until deadline is a scum tactic. You are not voting, or really giving any opinions on people. Lynching is the only weapon the town has, and so close to a deadline, we need opinions.

I think xyzzy is more likely to be scum than Phate, but I still think Snaps is a better lynch.

[Bookitty]

I WAS voting for Panzer. Now I'm doing a reread. I just did a pretty in-depth analysis on why I don't think Kison and Panzer should claim their targets, to which no one has really responded other than Snaps, and his response wasn't very detailed.

I've given PLENTY of opinions on people throughout the game. So I'm not certain why you're singling me out for this, Rishi, since I was voting up until Panzer's claim, since I'm doing a reread, and since Panzer has already indicated that he's most likely going to vig me tonight. Since I'm town, that's not a good thing, but since he's going on gut, I can't defend myself against it.

I'm not voting for Snaps, because I'm not finished with my reread. I'm willing to vote him to avoid a no-lynch, but I'm not convinced he's the best lynch for today.

I really am curious why you singled me out for this, Rishi, when I was voting up til very recently, when I have been forthright and open with my opinions, and when I have posted far more recently than a lot of other non-voters. Can you explain?

[Rishi]

I really am curious why you singled me out for this, Rishi, when I was voting up til very recently, when I have been forthright and open with my opinions, and when I have posted far more recently than a lot of other non-voters. Can you explain?

Because you're active. You posted since I originally said that we need opinions from everyone on who they were willing to lynch. Snaps and Toaster Strudel and Panz answered the question. You posted and did not answer the question.

And, yes, I do want to hear the same from Kison, vollkan and Phate. I would assume xyzzy is willing to lynch Snaps since he's voting Snaps.

[Bookitty]

Without doing a reread (and so you're not getting my detailed reasoning) I'm willing to lynch Xyzzy/Phate as likely members of one scumteam and Toaster Strudel/Rishi as likely members of the other. Snaps is a possible replacement on either. I think the original scumteams would have looked like this:

Xylthixlm/Xyzzy/Phate

and

Egruntz/Toaster Strudel/Rishi

And when I was voting for Panzer, I had him pegged in Toaster Strudel's spot.

I can't support any of this right now, without doing my reread, but there are my general thoughts.

[Rishi]

Thanks for the answer, Bookitty. I think I need to do a re-read on xyzzy and Phate since their names come up a lot.

[vollkan]

Scumdar

{I am trying a new method for these. Rather than reading in isolation, I reread the thread and take detailed notes for each person. That way, I shouldn't make isolation-based errors. I don't pretend for this to be as thorough as a PBPA, but it is intended to provide a better-than-rough guide - a means to focus myself onto the scummiest few, rather than to take on a single suspect}

I am also going to try reworking my % ranking system, since it could be made clearer. Henceforth, there will be no 'percentages'. Each person shall receive a rank from -100 to 100. Each person starts at 0. Towniness pulls the number down (ie. confirmed town = -100). Scumminess pushes it up (ie. confirmed scum = 100)

For the purposes of this reread, each starts at 0 (the neutral position):

** Also: Claims are irrelevant to the ranking, which is solely behavioural. Claims are factored into consideration after attributing a ranking.

NOTES

{These aren't exhaustive (only until page 25 or so) but I thought I might as well include them}

Bookitty

- She is quick to vote egr for pushing No Lynch. I don't like the fact that she doesn't actually ask him to justify his belief, instead just attacking it. She later implies the vote was for pressure/info-gathering (#41) but, again, she asked no questions at the time of voting.

+5

. Shaky unvote also, after she says that Egr pointing out the missed quote tag was a towntell. Her post 136 has my firm agreement, and probing questions of egr. I don't like her lack of explanation for voting DS in 170; she almost sets up a dichotomy. *SEETHES* at 274. Overreaction IS NOT A SCUMTELL!!! Good case against egr.

Toaster Strudel

- {TS}Liamcool casts an unexplained FoS on Mills in 78. Weird speculative questioning in 464.

Phate

- Lurks early on, only posting "We're not out to lynch the antitown players. We're out to lynch the scum." Which is true, but hardly a big contribution. I don't like the one-liners. (+5) Much theory posting (+5) Unexplained vote for egr. His lurking is disconcerting.

Kison

- {Mills} Really atrocious post by Mills in 70, voting DS for being a VI (+10). I also dislike Mills' use of aggression as a suspicion justification. His stance on gut votes is inconsistent. He doesn't mind them...but he wants reason

Xyzzy

- Good attack on egr. Good response to Snaps' anti-lurkering.

Panzerjager

I don't like his vote on Fonz for "writing off" egr as newb, and voting Boo for voting Egr. Boo's vote was scummy and Egr was looking like a newbie, if not a VI. (+5) Decent vote on Mills for the BM Fallacy. I really don't like 202; he doesn't back up his claims. (+5). I really like 206, since he adopts a smart attitude to the DS wagon. I don't like his vote for Xyzzy in 503 - he refers to my reasons, and undefined reasons of his own. (+5) I don't follow the attack against Bookitty...

Rishi

Casts a vote on OGML, and never follows it up with reasons (+5). The colours issue as a null-tell imo.

Snaps_the_Pirate

Snaps rationalises egr in an odd way - that it's obviously just how egr plays. I wonder why he didn't actually try and probe out egr's belief and reasoning. Pushes DS for "lurking and bandwagoning" neither of which are scumtells, and both of which make for easy targets.

+5%

Irony of ironies - in 72 he again continues his crap attacks on DS, as well as accusing Mills of trying " to start an easy bandwagon."

+5

Bizarrely, he says his highest suspicions are DS and Egr - despite having declared that he thinks Egr is genuine. In 103, he raises the WIFOMic idea that DS is pulling a double-bluff. Again pushes this line in 131. Don't like his reasoning that we should vote lurkers to prevent scum having hiding places. Opens D2 with an attack on DE - again attacks lurking and misconstrues 226 as justifying scummy play. Lurker-hops in 549 (+5)

CONCLUSIONS:

Bookitty

- She's been active, posting in a well-reasoned fashion and not giving off scumtells. I haven't written her off, especially given the setups, but she won't be going under the hammer today.

-20

Toaster Strudel

- Liam is largely unreadable, and TS hasn't done enough thus far to give anything tangible in terms of reasoning to analyse.

0

presuming the reasoning picks up.

Phate

- Lurker, too much theory to begin with, little scumhunting.

60

Kison

- I didn't like aspects of Mills' play, but I trust his claim for now.

35

Xyzzy

- Little original scumhunting. Seems to be playing lightly. He doesn't like Snaps' lurker-hunting (neither do I) but nor does he like my proposal. I can't understand what he wants.

50

Panzerjager

- See above for a number of inadequately justified votes. Claim is believable, so not being lynched by me at this stage.

30

Rishi

- Passive play, largely. I don't like his insinuating Boo defending me as being scummy when she wasn't defending me and when defence is not illegitimate.

45

Snaps_the_Pirate

- Ahoy. The persistent lurker-hunting is an enormous black mark against this guy. I've given a PBPA, anything here will just be repetitive.

80

[Toaster Strudel]

Both Phate and Xyzzy are serious lurkers so I would suggest one of them. I am also suspicious of Rishi and Xyzzy because they followed Panzer to form a bandwagon on me...

I can help you with your problem. I actually think that Phate is scum.

unvote, vote: Phate

Why?

Scumputer result. Check my previous posts.

[Rishi]

Both Phate and Xyzzy are serious lurkers so I would suggest one of them. I am also suspicious of Rishi and Xyzzy because they followed Panzer to form a bandwagon on me...

I can help you with your problem. I actually think that Phate is scum.

unvote, vote: Phate

Why?

Scumputer result. Check my previous posts.

Could you translate the scumputer output to English?

[Toaster Strudel]

Scumputer data

I read it again, it's perfectly clear. Just read it. It's all explained.

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

@ Panzerjager: I would like this question answered.

Panzer, why did you target CKD on night one?

@Toaster Strudel: Could you explain this statement please,

A TWO-shot vig is a little bizarre. A one-shot vig, or a regular vig, but TWO shot???

Do you think Panz has falsely claimed? If so, in what way? If you think his claim is false, why have you unvoted him?