Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)

[Megatheory]

/confirm

[Megatheory]

Vote: fouxdufafa

Eh! Steve!

[Megatheory]

In this game, we absolutely have to come down hard on lurkers. With 25 people and two week deadlines, it will be extremely easy for scum to keep their heads down and let the townies lynch each other if we don't.

[Megatheory]

In this game, we absolutely have to come down hard on lurkers. With 25 people and two week deadlines, it will be extremely easy for scum to keep their heads down and let the townies lynch each other if we don't.

This is very, very true.

I'm not down with lynching lurkers only because they are lurking.

Neither am I. Pressuring lurkers is what I want.

It's not pressure unless it has the threat of a lynch behind it.

This is so true.

[Megatheory]

We shouldn't be talking about if pressure should lead to lynches on lurkers except regarding specific cases. What pressure means should be for the town to know and the scum to find out. But since the cat's out of the bad anyway, whether or not a lurker should be lynched is highly situational and any kind of policy will almost certainly bite the town in the ass.

Pressure is pressure. That should be the end of the discussion.

Oh, and I don't think we can find out who is town or scum based on their position on this issue.

Unvote

unvote:
vote: Wall-e

No matter the alignment you always seem scummy.

A) what akes Wall-E scummy now?

B) How can you be sure he is scum if you always find him scummy?

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a

FoS: Megatheory

in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

Whoa, I didn't think you were being serious at first. Am I being singled out because I was the first to post on the subject, and if so, how does that make me scummy? Would anybody else who posted first about lurkers be suspicious also?

[Megatheory]

There is no logical basis behind the idea that I started the lurker discussion to set up my scumpartners as an anti-lurker squad. Setting up a scumteam in this way is suicidal, as once one of them is killed, the others are seriously exposed.

Why is every protown play turned into some kind of ridiculous scum gambit? The doctor claims with two successful protections, so he must be clearing himself and his scumbuddies, right?

If there's anything behind the case on me besides silly paranoia, I'd love to hear it.

[Megatheory]

unvote

vote Empking

There! I am voting now. Want to add something?

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable.

Vote: Sir Tornado

Pretending to play? I see Sir T being sarcastic and unhelpful here, but I really don't see where the votes on him are coming from. Can everyone who suspects Sir T explain why?

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado

This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.

Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.

So you're looking at that one post and concluding that Sir T is "pretending to play." Can you really say that about his other posts? I think he's one of the better contributors so far, even if I don't agree with him.

@Tornado: Yes, I get it, which I quite clearly stated, but you're missing the point. Just answer instead of trying to disguise your answer in quotes.
@Shanba: Care to explain your vote?

No.

Why should I explain it? It's perfectly simple for others to go over your posts and see what I think I'm seeing. Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.

This isn't really helpful. If you see something worthy of a vote, sharing it with us will do a lot more than letting the scummy behavior you're seeing go on.

Hmm.... not really much to comment on. EmpKing looks pretty suspicious right now, I don't like how he was trying to get everyone to vote. Sounds like he wants a quick lynch.

unvote

FoS: Empking

Actually, there's a lot to comment on. But what really interests me is your FoS. Why not vote?

Claim: Day Cop

Guilty on Armlx

Ehh, i'm just pissing with you lol...

Don't be a retard.

Of course. Mega, by doing this, unintentionally or not, you've caused a stir of talking that both allows you to pretend your contributing and lurk in the open at the same time. Though, if it helps, I don't think you're too scummy. But perhaps that's because you're not contributing much. *glares* Whoooo aaarr uuuu? *chuckles*

when al4xz hasn't been contributing much more. All his posts have been about lynching lurkers. I haven't really been a major contributor myself thus far, but I don't want to be hypocritical about it and accuse others of doing the same. People might think I'm...trying to deflect attention onto someone else.

Good catch. I'd love to see some content from al4xz.

Self-metaing is WIFOM, except in this case of confirming thoughts on game theory.

(random game theory aside over)

Vote Megatheory

I missed the part where he attacked farside for the same random vote.

I didn't know it was random at the time. I probably should have known it was.

I don't see the case on Sir T, seems like it's mostly over play style. I don't see the BlackAdder case, though there isn't really any to start with. I think there's some scummy bandwagoning on him.

I agree with farside that Surye's vote on Sir T was bandwagoning.

Vote Surye

[Megatheory]

So you're looking at that one post and concluding that Sir T is "pretending to play." Can you really say that about his other posts? I think he's one of the better contributors so far, even if I don't agree with him.

Can I say that about his other posts? Uhh.. no? Which is why I not only unvoted him, but also defended him? Are you even paying attention to this game?

You're acting like I'm still voting him. Your post is full of silly.

You're acting like your past actions have no relevance. They do. It's a big part of scumhunting.

You changed your mind later. That's not the point. Other than that one post you quoted, what made you think Sir T was pretending to play at the time you voted? I'm guessing you won't be able to point anything out because Sir T has contributed a lot. I think it's a bandwagon vote because you took one post and asserting that Sir T was pretending to play when his previous posts say otherwise.

By the way, your unvote post says nothing about Sir T's aleged "pretending to play."

[Megatheory] opens with an old post that has been discussed and explained...

Why are you trying so hard to make us think your past actions have no relevance? And, no you haven't explained it much at all.

...(for the most part, I can explain why I thought he was pretending to play if you want, but lets just move on for a moment)...

So you admit you've never explained this. Why haven't you already? Since "pretending to play" is your reason for voting Sir T, I would think if you were town trying to expose Sir T as scum, you would have explained this right away.

...He connects me strongly in many places to voting for Sir T.

He proceeds to be baffled as to why people are voting Sir T, and say the case is over his play style (pay attention to this, it's important). He then again comes back to me, repeats his earlier statement, connection it to his most recent post then votes me.

I am not voting you because the case on Sir T is mostly over playstyle. I am voting you because you voted and justified it by taking one post out of the overall context of Sir T's play. My confusion over why Sir T was suspected is a separate issue.

Even if there was, how is that scummy in the least?

That + the misrepresentation =

unvote, vote: Megatheory

Please be more specific, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The problem is you voted for him based on his play style and unvoted him because why exactly?

He unvoted for the reasons he posted when he unvoted*

I think he is being vague. I don't like vague.

You're clouding the issue. You're isolating my unvote post, and not looking at my discussion of how his meta makes the playstyle a null tell. When I voted, these things had not come into light. I may have been vague in my unvote post (I don't think so), but I continued to explain why Sir T didn't deserve a vote for several other posts.

This is your vote post:

unvote

vote Empking

There! I am voting now. Want to add something?

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable.

Vote: Sir Tornado

This is the only post between your vote and unvote:

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado

This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.

Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.

This is your unvote post:

I'm liking SirT's responses, and I can see his point. I wish he had just been more clear, and avoided this all. His vote was really misleading.

Unvote

This is the post where you discussed metagaming:

Basically I'd see this particular pattern as a nulltell when meta supports it. Unless it's a REALLY bad pattern, it's not worth droning on when it's easily provable it's a null tell based on meta. And while his behavior was worth discussing, I don't think it's going to amount to much more.

Your thoughs about Sir T's meta didn't come until after you had unvoted so you can't really use that as an explanation for why you unvoted. Further, you say his meta says that his play now is a null tell, so that wouldn't explain your unvote anyway. Further, none of this has anything to do with the idea that Sir T was "pretending to play."

[Megatheory]

@Megatheory: read Surye's posts defending himself. I agree with him.

That's awfully lazy. If you find me so suspicious that I deserve a vote, why aren't you explaining yourself, pushing me, and trying to figure out if I'm really scum or not?

FoS Alabaska J

Your thoughs about Sir T's meta didn't come until after you had unvoted so you can't really use that as an explanation for why you unvoted.

Really? You only get one shot? I'll keep that in mind. Discussions are not necessary, since you only get one post.

The rest of your post hinges on that, so I don't have a response to such nonsense. His meta game supports his non-play.

Since you all are harping on the pretending to play, I assure you that you're all getting tunnel vision no this fact. Look at the post I quoted in the vote. It's pretending to play, 100%. It's participating because he's told to. Now, how much did I invest in this? Did I lead the charge to have him lynched? No. Did I then proceed to follow the discussion on why he would do that, then weigh in, and unvote? Yes.

You're being so ridiculous.

No, you aren't restricted to "one shot," or whatever you're implying here. You're saying that you unvoted him because of his meta, but that isn't really explicit in your unvote post. It looks to me like you grafted his meta onto your reasons for unvoting.

That said, I'm not really convinced that you're scum. There are a few things that caught my attention, but nothing looks scummy enough for me, so

Unvote

for now, but

IGMEOY

.

unvote

vote Surye

I hope atleast a few people see what I see.

Oh hell, not this again.

Look, if people aren't going to put reasons behind their votes, we're never going to catch scum. The game is too big for people to not mention what they are seeing.

Meh, so be it. I'm not trying to be helpful, I'm trying to prove a point.

I'm glad you recognize that this method is unhelpful.

EBWOP. There's a word for people who don't want to be helpful to the town. I can't think of what it is right now. I believe it starts with an S and ends with an M...

Annoying != scummy. When are people going to finally understand this?

...I'm voting Slicey because of his tentative posting.

Hmm.... not really much to comment on. EmpKing looks pretty suspicious right now, I don't like how he was trying to get everyone to vote.

Hmm... BlakAdder looks suspicious to me, mainly cause I feel like he's attacking Sir T for the way he posts, which I don't like.

he's said he's suspicious of EmpKing and Blakadder, but has yet to place a single vote. He explains this by saying: "I don't think one somewhat scummy post automatically makes them scum. And I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase", which is fair enough, but that's only part of what I find scummy. So far, he has said "Hmm..." twice, ">_>" (and variants) 4 times. He feels nervous. When he's asking Wall-E why he's voting for him, he adds "Just curious." at the end, as if he's afraid asking will get him into trouble. This might be excusable if he were a newbie, but he's posting meta opinions like:

I don't like unvoting and voting like crazy, unless it's the random voting phase

and

I'd say pressure people that seem scummy. If you think lurking is a scumtactic, well that's what you think. Evetually, they will have to post though, and we'll see if those posts seem scummy

which indicate that he has a certain amount of mafia experience. Compare with my posting in Basic twelve player mafia, where I was scum. By the end of that game, I was horrifically nervous, and it was showing through in my posts, and the "defeatist" attitude was the reason most of the town had deduced I was scum.

This is a really good case. I got the same general vibe when I caught that unvote and FoS post of his. I'll take a look at him once I"m caught up.

Wow, that Slicey wagon grew incredibly fast. Do we really want to play "lynch the n00b" today?

[Megatheory]

I'd just like to note this wagon moved way too fast to not be scum powered in some way, regardless of Slicey's alignment.

QFT, especially when there has been almost no concensus up until the Slicey wagon.

I've seen mafia bus their partners on the early half of a BW only to watch in horror as the BW went to lynch. In fact, it's happened to ME before.

So you think if Slicey is scum, then his parteners would show up earlier in the wagon?

Well, this is an interesting wagon. I could see so many of these votes as scumvotes (notably BlakAdder, but that could just be confirmation bias.)

Oh really? What other votes look scummy to you, and why didn't you point them out before?

Also, your argument that we are just "lynching the noob" is invalid; noobs are just as likely to be scum as anyone else.

I am not arguing against the Slicey lynch (yet), I am just cautioning the town against moving swiftly against an easy target for scum. In fact, this argument is especially valid when the speed of the Slicey wagon means it is probably scum driven.

It seems like a lot of people want to end the day. Can we at least wait until tomorrow night before we lynch Slicey?