Mafia 74: Minimally Flavoured - Game over!

[Rishi]

Before his claim, I was suspicious (and probably somewhat OMGUSsy, due to his repeated jumping on me without any basis for it). Since then, I've been pretty convinced he's town suffering from confirmation bias.

But don't you agree he's not being particularly helpful right now?

[Bookitty]

I absolutely do. I'm just not comfortable with Toaster Strudel's comments about "distracting from a Panzer lynch". And I'd like her reasoning for why a Panzer lynch would be a good thing.

[pickemgenius]

2) PEG, why do you regard my argument with Egruntz as minor, when ultimately it ended with him being lynched due to my mistaken belief that he was linked to Xylthixlm? Or are you referring to my original vote on him Day 1?

Everything I read on egruntz and you just seemed to be crazy small gameplay, or really piddly crap attacks, that didnt really strike me as crazy strong really.

[Bookitty]

Everything I read on egruntz and you just seemed to be crazy small gameplay, or really piddly crap attacks, that didnt really strike me as crazy strong really.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't feel it's true, but I'd like to know specifically your basis for thinking that an attack that was instrumental in getting someone lynched (rightly, but for the wrong reasons) was insignificant.

[pickemgenius]

Everything I read on egruntz and you just seemed to be crazy small gameplay, or really piddly crap attacks, that didnt really strike me as crazy strong really.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't feel it's true, but I'd like to know specifically your basis for thinking that an attack that was instrumental in getting someone lynched (rightly, but for the wrong reasons) was insignificant.

I don't have any certainty as to whether egruntz's stance on no-lynch was a true newb-tell, or a newb-scum tell, and some other things he's done seem fairly pro-town to me. I'm waiting to see more from him before I draw any conclusions in that regard.

Why is it, that just because I think differently than you, that I'm automatically either a newbie or scum?

Really

.

Why is it, that just because I think differently than you, that I'm automatically either a newbie or scum?

Really

.

Well, the charitable interpretation of pushing for no-lynch is that you are new to the site and thus don't see the disadvantage of giving the scum a free nightkill without any fear of being lynched. Additionally if we all agreed to a no-lynch on day one, no productive discussion could result from bandwagons, watching who was on the lynch, who pushed against it, etc. I think this has been explained to you by more capable and experienced players than me.

The uncharitable explanation is that scum would benefit from a no-lynch day one. They would not run the risk of being lynched, nor have to defend their actions at a later date regarding their behaviour on the day one lynch, they would not have to make arguments that later events would prove false... in general, they'd get a nightkill for free, and so it would be a beneficial move for scum if they could persuade town to a no-lynch. That's why pushing for a no-lynch is widely regarded as a scumtell except in very specific (and not currently applicable) circumstances.

So, that's why, egruntz.

... OR, it could just be a specific's playstyle. We aren't getting any information out of day one so far, besides "everyone bandwagon ____, he's scum for not being active!" and so and so.

As I mentioned before, it would be best to not lynch at all if we all can't come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia. And I don't really feel like repeating myself beyond that.

... OR, it could just be a specific's playstyle. We aren't getting any information out of day one so far, besides "everyone bandwagon ____, he's scum for not being active!" and so and so.

As I mentioned before, it would be best to not lynch at all if we all can't come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia. And I don't really feel like repeating myself beyond that.

Do you really feel that we aren't getting any information out of day one so far? Is it your experience that town can ever come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia before that person is dead?

No. I'm saying that Day 1 doesn't give you

enough

evidence that a certain person is Mafia. In all of the previous games I've played, the players ended up lynching one of their own on the first day, because they just

knew

that person was mafia.

In every game I suggest for a no lynch, I get flamed and pointed at; and I'm perfectly fine with that. I'll continue to "push" for no lynch, if we don't get hard evidence against someone.

For right

now

, voting for no lynch is a stupid idea, since we still have a while before the first day is forced to end. But if we all can't agree on a definite mafia by that time, we'd best be off by not lynching at all, instead of taking our chances when it's, what, 3/18 against us?

My reasoning is more this, CKD:

Egruntz was under a bit of pressure, at least from his own stated perspective. My vote was on him. Other votes were on Liamcool mistakenly for a quote that egruntz made. Thus the logical assumption would be that if egruntz owned up to the quote, that those votes would devolve to him, at least in my view.

Waiting a bit, lurking, might allow something else to develop to distract the town. At that time, pointing this out would perhaps be a less risky move. Our attention has been pretty well focussed on egruntz in one way or another, and that doesn't seem like a good thing for scum, nor something they would willingly bring upon themselves, as egruntz did here.

I could be wrong, but my feeling was that scum would have lurked and waited for someone else to point it out, if that was going to happen anyway. It wasn't an obvious thing, due to the tag failure, so it wouldn't have made egruntz seem any more suspicious in my eyes anyway.

Just my opinion though.

Here you're like almost defending egruntz...

Why is it, that just because I think differently than you, that I'm automatically either a newbie or scum?

Really

.

Well, the charitable interpretation of pushing for no-lynch is that you are new to the site and thus don't see the disadvantage of giving the scum a free nightkill without any fear of being lynched. Additionally if we all agreed to a no-lynch on day one, no productive discussion could result from bandwagons, watching who was on the lynch, who pushed against it, etc. I think this has been explained to you by more capable and experienced players than me.

The uncharitable explanation is that scum would benefit from a no-lynch day one. They would not run the risk of being lynched, nor have to defend their actions at a later date regarding their behaviour on the day one lynch, they would not have to make arguments that later events would prove false... in general, they'd get a nightkill for free, and so it would be a beneficial move for scum if they could persuade town to a no-lynch. That's why pushing for a no-lynch is widely regarded as a scumtell except in very specific (and not currently applicable) circumstances.

So, that's why, egruntz.

Here you're explaining stuff to egruntz..

... OR, it could just be a specific's playstyle. We aren't getting any information out of day one so far, besides "everyone bandwagon ____, he's scum for not being active!" and so and so.

As I mentioned before, it would be best to not lynch at all if we all can't come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia. And I don't really feel like repeating myself beyond that.

Do you really feel that we aren't getting any information out of day one so far? Is it your experience that town can ever come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia before that person is dead?

YOUR VERY NEXT POST IS:

I was debating back and forth on this. But after a reread of Mills vs. Disciple Slayer in isolation, the choice became a lot simpler.

unvote; vote Disciple Slayer

Then you defend your vote on DS after Panzer FOS'ed everyone voting DS.

I've seen scum push no-lynch day one. The same discussion came about (no scum would be this stupid!) but then the scum did a variety of other stupid things and got himself lynched. No-lynch is beneficial to scum. PUSHING no-lynch hardly ever is.

I voted for egruntz in the first place because I felt it would underscore my seriousness about not wanting this discussion to become the primary focus of day one. I did not do it because I thought he was scum. (He may be scum. But I did not have sufficient evidence then, nor do I now, to lynch him.) Nonetheless he continued to push this, and we're still discussing it. The discussion is not helpful to town, and actually provides a lot of opportunities for scum to look "pro-town" by objecting to it, while not risking much in return.

We're not going to no-lynch. Egruntz arguing for it is not pro-town, but neither is it scummy necessarily.

Later in that post you vote for Mills.

Then you start going after Mills.


Blah Blah Blah more Mills crap.

Here's my suspicions, in the order of greatest to least:

1. Disciple Slayer
2. Mills
3. Xylthixlm

Not much, but something. I'm still most suspicious of Disciple Slayer due to jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon. As for Mills, it's very suspicious that he leaves when we were getting on him. Not having the style to play mafia isn't a good enough reason to just run out.

As for Xylth... IDK, I don't like him ;o
No, just playing bro. Bandwagons; but no as bad as DS.

Which might have been distancing, and certainly isn't a very good case against Xylthixlm.

Given what we know now about DS/Eteocles and Xyl, it might seem pretty obvious, and Xyl might have seen it as far too obvious a linkage. That would explain Xyl's arguing with me back and forth for a while, and then abruptly abandoning it with this:

No, I see your point now. Thanks.

And later, this is a point in Dark Ermac's favour:

Dark Ermac: In other words, you're afraid to tell us who you think is scummy, because doing so might make you look scummy. That's pretty scummy in itself.

Additionally, Xylthixlm's last post was this:

I plan to take a hard look at Dark Ermac, egruntz, and Panzerjager tomorrow.

Which seems odd, because he'd already taken a pretty hard look at egruntz already. I'm not sure why egruntz is included here. My guess is that Xyl was distancing.

unvote; vote egruntz

Additionally, egruntz hasn't posted since January 16th.

@mod, could you please prod egruntz? Thanks!

@MY BOLD- I disagree with distancing being considered a weak case.

And it really doesn't appear that you're going after egruntz for any legit reasons, because you use DISTANCING BETWEEN XYL AND ERG AS YOUR ONLY REASONING THERE!!!! ZOMG LETS CALL DISTANCING WEAK AND IN THE SAME EXACT POST LETS VOTE EGRUNTZ BECAUSE OF DISTANCING!!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!



THEN YOU START TO GO AFTER OGML... DITCHING EGRUNTZ VOTE THREE POSTS LATER.(three of your posts)

I've given my reasons for my OGML vote. (I don't remember offhand if anyone else had voted him.) The only other reason I have goes to WIFOM about the night kill and Fonz's suspicion of OGML perhaps being a reason for his death, but that depends on OGML being scum with Xylthixlm, not egruntz (assuming we're right about two scum groups) and I can't find any connections there.

I think a clearer way to say what I meant is that *I* haven't found much of use in looking at how people interacted with Xylthixlm. And I have the opposite problem with egruntz... basically all the interactions I'm looking at there can be taken as legitimate bad reaction to his horrible no-lynch plan, or defending someone who is clearly a newbie... I can't derive much from it either. Nearly all of us had one reaction or the other to egruntz, and I don't have a clear idea whether scum would distance or defend such play. If you see something different, Snaps, I'd be glad to hear it, but I'm not gleaning much I think is definitive or useful in either case personally.

Have you seen any such connections? If so, what information have you derived?

This isn't an attack on egruntz...


You begin to go after Panzer...

THEN EGRUNTZ IS DEAD

So anyone on Egruntz's scumteam would have been really reluctant to vote him OR defend him, and would have been anxious both to avoid committing to a position on his lynch, and to be on his wagon once that lynch was inevitable, so as to distance to some extent

I would say in general you were reluctant to vote for him, and you even did somewhat defend him also.

[Bookitty]

Okay. The first bolded thing is a comment on Egruntz's case against Xylthixlm. I was commenting that saying "As for Xylth... IDK, I don't like him ;o " was not a strong case against Xylthixlm. So you're wrong there.

I was voting Egruntz right up til he was lynched. Admittedly, after he was lynched, I stopped voting him, and went after OGML, with the reasoning given in the quote you listed. Perhaps you feel I should have continued to vote him after his lynch, but I thought that wasn't really productive.

Do you really think I should have continued voting for Egruntz after he was dead?

[pickemgenius]

Okay. The first bolded thing is a comment on Egruntz's case against Xylthixlm. I was commenting that saying "As for Xylth... IDK, I don't like him ;o " was not a strong case against Xylthixlm. So you're wrong there.

Which might have been distancing, and certainly isn't a very good case against Xylthixlm.

so did distancing just come out of your ass or something? am i just imagining YOU are the one the brought up distancing??? please tell me i'm not completely baked right now.

I was voting Egruntz right up til he was lynched. Admittedly, after he was lynched, I stopped voting him, and went after OGML, with the reasoning given in the quote you listed. Perhaps you feel I should have continued to vote him after his lynch, but I thought that wasn't really productive.

Do you really think I should have continued voting for Egruntz after he was dead?

iirc you made one post that entire day and it was voting egruntz. eins posten.


no you don't vote egruntz after he is dead. i mistyped a few names atop. it happens.

[Bookitty]

I was not accusing Egruntz of accusing Xylthixlm of distancing. I was saying his crap case (which I SAID wasn't very good) might have been distancing FROM Xylthixlm. I was accusing Egruntz of being scum WITH Xylthixlm. Now, I was wrong about that, but your whole argument that I was reluctant to vote Egruntz and that I moved my vote as soon as I can is complete nonsense. I started that case, I followed it through to the end, and I don't regard it as a weak attack when it was instrumental in getting him lynched.

I don't think it's a typo when you were using my LATER vote on OGML, after Egruntz was lynched and dead, as some sort of evidence that I moved my vote off Egruntz. That's more than a typing mistake.

[pickemgenius]

limited possibly until monday due to graduation shit

[Rishi]

*bump*

[Toaster Strudel]

I've lost track of this game. Are we lynching someone?

[Rishi]

I've lost track of this game. Are we lynching someone?

Sure. Would you like to volunteer?

[Toaster Strudel]

I've lost track of this game. Are we lynching someone?

Sure. Would you like to volunteer?

If it stops this game from stalling, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for the common good.

[Rishi]

Ooh. Sweet! (No pun intended)

Vote: Toaster Strudel

[vollkan]

I've lost track of this game. Are we lynching someone?

Sure. Would you like to volunteer?

If it stops this game from stalling, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for the common good.

How does you sacrificing yourself help the common good in 25 words or less.

Ooh. Sweet! (No pun intended)

Vote: Toaster Strudel

Why so quick?

[Rishi]

Ooh. Sweet! (No pun intended)

Vote: Toaster Strudel

Why so quick?

I thought an immediate vote without any justification would provide the most humorous effect. It's not like we're going to lynch anyone any time soon.

[Bookitty]

I'm still waiting for pickemgenius to explain his comments. It's well past Monday now.

I still don't think Panzer is a good lynch. If we choose to disbelieve his claim, we have an unexplained death night one. I suppose it's possible, if we have a 3-person scum group and a two-person scum group, that the two person scum group might have been given another kill, but I've never been in a game with two scum groups where they were uneven, and I don't know how likely that is. In any case I am not willing to lynch him today. I believe his claim.

For those who were pushing his lynch: do you disbelieve his claim? How do you explain the extra kill night one?

What does town gain by lynching him? It's very clear what scum gains; not so clear to me what town gains by doing so.

[Elias_the_thief]

The End of Day Five Votecount:

Panzerjager - 2

(Xyzzy, Toaster Strudel)

Toaster Strudel - 1

(panzerjager)

Xyzzy - 0

Rishi - 0

Bookitty - 0

Vollkan - 0

pickemgenius - 0

Nobody - 3

(bookitty, Rishi, Vollkan, pickemgenius)

At deadline, two votes is enough. You drag Panzerjager to the noose and let him hang. Somehow you find out that he was a vigilante.

Panzerjager,

2-Shot Vigilante

, lynched Day Five.

---

It is now Night Five. Night will end on

Friday, May 23rd at 10 PM, EST.

[Elias_the_thief]

Morning as come. There are two deaths. They were Vollkan and Bookitty.

Bookitty,

vanilla townie

, killed Night Five.

Vollkan,

vanilla townie

, killed Night Five.

---

It is now

Day Six

. With 4 alive it will take 3 to lynch. Deadline for today is

Friday, June 20th

, at 10 PM EST.

[Rishi]

Wow. I almost forgot about this game. Need to re-read. I'll try to post this weekend.

[xyzzy]

Hmm...

Do people agree we should mass claim?

[Toaster Strudel]

There is one scum, then a scum duo, then a townie.

Yeah, a massclaim should be realllly interesting.

[Rishi]

Okay. There are actually a few possibilities.

1) Two scumteams of two. That means there is one scum left (egruntz's team) and the Xyl/Snaps team is eliminated. If this is true, our best bet is No Lynch. I find this somewhat unlikely considering there were two kills last night.

2) Two scumteams of three. This means that Toaster Strudel is correct and there is a scum duo, a lone scum, and a pro-town player. This seems a likely scenario.

3) Uneven scum teams. If this is true, then that means that Xyl and Snaps still have another buddy out there and egruntz has a buddy alive. (To account for the two kills.)

So, I guess we can assume that Number 2 is the right scenario. That means, for the town to win, we must lynch a egruntz-scum today and then hope that the two scumgroups cross-kill.

I'm kind of sure that Toaster Strudel is scum, since she seems to know exactly what the setup is, but the way that she was defending Snaps, I think she might be on that team. That makes her a bad lynch. Which means that xyzzy/PEG are egruntz-scum.

[xyzzy]

I think it's 2-2 - seems most plausible, balance-wise.

[pickemgenius]

IN COLORADO AGAIN LIMITED ACCESS..



*finding a house is more important*