Open 106 - Impotence Mafia (Game Over!) before 714

[EmpTyger]

/confirm

[EmpTyger]

I’m considering an immediate massclaim of vigilante/not-vigilante. Still tihnking through, but the way I see it:

1) We force the mafia to claim before they have a strategy.
2) The mafia don’t learn the identity of our powerroles. (The real vig is masked in 2 “vanillas”, the roleblocker is masked by 5 vanillas.)

---

Natirasha:
I'm giving you 24 hours to convince me not to vote you.

[EmpTyger]

NatirashaL

<snip>EmpTyger, I understand you hate self voting, me, and jokeclaiming, but are you serious.
<snip>

Natirasha, I understand you hate finding mafia, me, and protown behavior, but are you serious

---

Natirasha for real:
Now, we’re in a strict deadline situation, so, let’s skip the unhelpful timewasting banter and cut right to the chase. Yes, I am familiar with your so-called meta. It is irrelevant.

The town cannot win if it tolerates antitown behavior.

Especially with strict deadlines. This isn’t personal. This has nothing to do with your pattern of behavior. (Except perhaps so far as my lack of patience in dealing with you). This is solely about this game- and how in this game you are so far not helping the town. And if you don’t help the town, I will vote you.

If you prefer: my “meta” is to always vote self-voters who show no inclination of helping the town under a strict deadline situation. My “meta” > your “meta”.

(Even if I did the extreme step of playing exclusively to my “meta”- to only vote self-voters who show no inclination of helping the town under a strict deadline situation, and also to meanwhile do nothing else helpful. Even that would be better than your “meta”.)

---

SC:
The ultimatum is because we are under a deadline situation and I see no advantage in waiting. Why do you think an unhelpful player should be tolerated?

---

Zakeri:

Another thing to add - if the Three vigs all claim, there's only a 2/3 chance that the town will get one shot off, and a 1/3rds chance they will get none off. If the three vigs claim, The Mafia will Kill one off and roleblock another. If a Shot goes off from the town that night, the Mafia will roleblock the other living Vig and kill them, since the one they blocked first obviously didn't make the shot.

So (assuming no counterclaim, which everyone seems to be assuming) we trade a compulsive vig for 3 immediate investigations (about an average cop performance).
That’s not including a 2/3 chance of a bonus 1-shot vig, and an independent 1/4 chance of the town roleblocker hitting either the mafia roleblocker or nightkiller. That does not seem like a trade that should be dismissed out-of-hand.

Of course, what we should be doing is scumhunting, not rolehunting.

Unvote, Vote:EmpTyger

I proposed that a plan be considered which could, in your estimation, immediately narrow the list of potential mafia from 12 to 9. How is that not scumhunting? Who do you see as doing more scumhunting than me?

---

yorgi:

<snip>
That gives the mafia rb 1 our of 3 changes to stop the vig. I don't think that is smart.

FOS EmpTyger

for not thinking it through all the way.

Er, who’s not thinking it through all the way?
I am aware of that cost may be. Are you aware of what the benefit might be? [See my reply above to Zakeri.]

---

Caboose:

I would think that the mafia would obviously claim non-vig. I don't think that they would expose themselves to a counter claim this early. I think it's pretty weird that you think that they would. And don't bring up WIFOM either. It's just something that only incompetant scum would do.

I’m not sure I agree that it’s that simple, but, I am not about to publicly debate the pros and cons of mafia claiming strategies. I do find it odd how obvious you feel this.

<snip>
Massclaim should be our last resort, not our first.

This is an open setup. What’s your reasoning here? Why shouldn’t a massclaim be considered?

---

BSW:
Whoever’s alt you are, you know enough about playing mafia to know what OMGUS is. That’s not a helpful contribution. You can be as gimmicky as you like, but only if you’re helpfing the town.

[EmpTyger]

chenhsi:
You placed a vote on me during the random stage: fine. But you’ve left it there without comment while ignoring some topics that are certainly more pertinent to my alignment. That’s a problem.

Likewise, you are being extremely non-committal regarding the massclaim: you “disagree” without reasoning but won’t argue against it if others support it. If you think it’s a bad idea, why would you go along with it?

Well, you don’t have to worry about me not voting yet any longer. I think I am ready.

Vote: chenhsi

---

SC:

OK, looking at this EmpTyger/Natirasha deal again, I'm still looking at EmpTyger, but for the massclaim suggestion instead of the ultimatum. As I said, I see why EmpTyger's is going after Natirasha, and I'm not liking Nat either. I'm pretty sure at least one of these two people is scum at this point, but page 3 is too early to say anything definitive.

Why did you eliminate the possibility that we are both innocent? And, specifically, what are you finding suspicious about my suggestion?

<snip>
I'll look at reactions when I check on my other games.

Did you find anything?

---

Appassionata:

I don't see the purpose of massclaiming at all.

I think it just seems to give the mafia a target after, and a 2/3 chance of stopping the vigilante.
<snip>

Which would you rather have: a cop who was guaranteed to get 3 results, or a vigilante with a drawback? That’s the purpose- that’s the worst case scenario.

And even then, the downside of the real vigilante being more exposed is offset by the fact that if the mafia try to chase the real vigilante, then they are not going after a more useful role, the roleblocker.

---

yorgi:

Why do we need to do this now? Isn't scum hunting more important then outing power roles?

Firstly, yes, we’d be doing is saying that there are 1 power role in 3 and 1 in 6 instead of 2 in 9. That’s hardly “outing power roles”. The reason to do this now is to gain a potential advantage of forcing the mafia to claim before they have coordinated a claiming strategy, while gaining information which makes it easier to find mafia.
Secondly, this is not either/or. A massclaim of this type is not mutually exclusive with finding mafia- and indeed, I’d say that who argues for and against- and how- to this proposal will be quite useful in that regard.

How does not taking 3 people out of the lime light help us find scum faster?

Um, I’m arguing that it does. It’s faster to find mafia in a set of 9 than a set of 12.

What it does do is give scum targets to role block and kill first.

It makes it easier for them to find the realvig, and harder to find the roleblocker.

---

Zakeri:
I want to think more about [62].

---

Natirasha:

EmpTyger, you are voting someone for something they haven't done.

Um, I haven’t voted you. So, don’t talk about “something they haven’t done”.

I've had 4 posts in this game. One, of course, is my self-vote which I do in every game. The second and third are content. This is my fourth. So, can you present to me some of this "anti-town behavior"?

(Post [57] is actually your fifth post)
1) Post [27] is the self voting. I’ve already explained how this is deliberately not helping the town. The fact that you do it in every game is immaterial.
2) Post [32] is “Actually, I'm making it my thing to claim serial killer in any massclaim situations from now on.”
3) Post [43] is asking if I was serious.
Post [43] also supported a mass-vig claim, which might have been considered helpful…
4) …had Post [45] not clarified that you were not basing this on any type of evaluation.

Now, your *sixth* [63] post does indicated that you’ve actually put thought into an aspect of this game which would help the town. Which, for the purposes of my ultimatum, I find satisfactory for now. I won’t hesitate to switch back to you if your play fails.

Additionally, I find your "We're under strict deadline" speech to be a false dilemma. We have a month. That's more than enough time to get a lynch in a open game.

Maybe, if the players are inclined to. However, I am very sure you’ve also been in games when the players don’t. Games in which the playesr, I don’t know , “get bored”, perhaps?

unvote, vote: Emptyger

as a matter of principle.

That principle being? (I’m going to regret asking this, won’t I.)

[EmpTyger]

[I have not/am not having a particularly simple weekend- forgive me for being less comprehensive than I like in this post, at least through Monday.]

---

Natirasha:
One step forward, 2 steps back. Not paying attention? Lying about your reason for a vote?

---

SC:

When two people are pretty high on my scum list, them both being innocent is simply not something I think about. I know that I could be completely wrong, and I may find people more suspicious than you two, but that's my current stance.
<snip>

Your suspicions happen to align with who has the most votes and why they’ve gotten them, even to the point of contradiction. Why would you attack me for attacking Natirasha, when Natirasha is your second highest suspect?

And with [69]- you seem more concerned with how other people perceived your vote than what you were actually doing with it.

<snip>
I'll look at reactions when I check on my other games.

Did you find anything?

Most people seem to be going pro-town about it.

That’s nice and vague. Which people- more importantly, who not?

It's very possible for townies to have bad ideas. Miserable ideas, even. But EmpTyger admitted that he didn't think it through all the way before bringing it up, and he should have thought it through all the way.

I *strongly* disagree. To take an extreme example: in lynch-or-lose, then, you’d argue that a player should just cast a vote when they think they’re ready, and do nothing- no discussion of thoughts, no seeking of feedback until then? Of course not.
No, it is antitown to do nothing until you’re sure. That is how mafia get to not commit to anything, giving them maximum potential opportunism.

---

yorgi:
Why [83] ignoring Zakeri’s [71], which says the opposite?

[EmpTyger]

ZR has posted in numerous other games the past 4 days, while lurking here.

---

Natirasha:
No, the lie was that you said you had a reason, then said you didn't have one. Now you're trying to essentially say, "jk it was actually OMGUS". Which (even if you did think I was voting you) is (a) not a protown principle for voting and (b) contradicts your [65] when you said you weren't sure what your principle was.

---

Zakeri:

Okay, you seem to be missing the point. The plan is a good one, but implimenting it now means that Scum can easily recover, take out our vig, and go on their merry way.
<snip>

Wouldn't it be easier for the mafia to recover if they get a chance to coordinate their claiming strategy? Today they may not have, but given how it's been discussed today, they will definitely have by tomorrow. That's the major sticking point I have with waiting.
(Well, also, a lack of confidence that the town would still go through with it depending on who's left around to argue for it.)

---

SC:
I'm not sure whether you're reaching to find reasons to consider me more suspicious than Natirasha, or bending over backwards to find reasons to consider Natirasha less suspicious than me.

<snip>
I don't like how Natirasha acted, but probably because I'm against massclaiming vig/non-vig on Day 1.
<snip>

So, you think Natirasha is suspicious- but vote me for voting him. Then, when that doesn't work, you say that the massclaim is more significant, and vote me again- but you just said that Natirasha's reaction to the massclaim was also antitown.

<snip>
It's very possible for townies to have bad ideas. Miserable ideas, even. But EmpTyger admitted that he didn't think it through all the way before bringing it up, and he should have thought it through all the way.

I *strongly* disagree. To take an extreme example: in lynch-or-lose, then, you’d argue that a player should just cast a vote when they think they’re ready, and do nothing- no discussion of thoughts, no seeking of feedback until then? Of course not.
No, it is antitown to do nothing until you’re sure. That is how mafia get to not commit to anything, giving them maximum potential opportunism.

I understand you here, but I don't remember saying town wasn't allowed to think out loud; in fact, if thinking out loud was forbidden, this game would go nowhere.

You don't remember? Um, I *quoted* you saying it. As I just did again.

And, incidentally, you can't just wave your hands and say "I'm doing something that doesn't make any logical sense but I can't say why." It didn't work for McCarthy.

---

mrfixij:

I think it's interesting that dumbblonde wanted info out of two lurkers who both stepped forward on P3 to say no to a massclaim and then step back into the shadows. I'm not entirely certain what it means yet, but I do think it's noteworthy.

This is awfully hedgy. Noteworthy how?

---

Caboose:

<snip>
I don't think Nat has been anti-town today thus far.

Not at all? I can see making a distinction between useless and unhelpful and antitown (not that I agree, mind you), but lying about the reasoning for a vote seems like it would be squarely on the side of antitown. How don't you think so?


-----

Vote Count:

ZazieR

(1) - yorgi

mrfixij

(0)

chenhsi

(1) - EmpTyger

yorgi

(0)

EmpTyger

(1) - chenhsi

afatchic

(0)

BlondeSoWut

(2) - ZazieR, Appassionata

StrangerCoug

(1) - Caboose

Appassionata

(1) - BlondeSoWut

Zakeri

(1) - mrfixij

Caboose

(0)

Natirasha

(3) - afatchic, Zakeri, StrangerCoug

Not voting

(1) - Natirasha

With 12 players alive, 7 votes will achieve a lynch.

Deadline for Day 1 is January 3.

Prodding ZazieR, chenhsi, and Appassionata

[EmpTyger]

Lurkercheck:
ZR hasn’t posted since Thursday, despite posting often elsewhere onsite.
chenhsi hasn’t posted since Friday (except to say on Monday that he’ll post on Tuesday- which he didn’t), despite posting onsite in the meanwhile.
afc hasn’t posted since Sunday, despite posting often elsewhere onsite.
BSW hasn’t posted since Sunday, but hasn’t posted onsite since (but since this is an obvious alt account, that’s meaningless).

---

Appassionata:

<snip>
What do you mean by recover? And why would they have to go through a claiming strategy. Wouldn't the mafia have to claim vanilla day anyway?
<snip>

“recover” was Zakeri’s term, but to me:
The mafia will be immediately disadvantaged by the claim- the “recovery” would be however they presumably respond. (If they don’t, then it’s a moot point.)
As for the other questions, um, are you really asking me to publicly discuss how the mafia could most advantageously claim?

---

yorgi:

yorgi:
Why [83] ignoring Zakeri’s [71], which says the opposite?

How is what I said opposite of Zakeri's post. She stated not today and more townies dead doing a mass claim. You are stating claim today. I disagree with you and agree with her.

Um no. I was in a rush, so I didn’t spell it out, but:

I see. In that case, we are much much more susceptible to fakeclaims from the Mafia, meaning

it would be terrible to do this during lylo

. I propose that we follow Emptyger's plan once we lose 4 townies due to misvigging and mislynching.
<snip>

While I appreciate Emp's point of view I disagree with it. I just think all he it does is help the scum. I agree that a mass claim would be in order later in the game.

Most likely lylo

or just before lylo depending on number of vig's alive in game.

---

SC:
Okay, I think you’re just making your reasons up as you go along. It’s gone from “threatening to vote Natirasha” to “making an ultimatum” to simply “being pushy”. And from “suggesting a massclaim” to “not thinking something all the way through” to simply “thinking out loud”.

I want to you to lay out your complete case against me, now.

Not just a list of what I’ve done; I want an explanation of why you think what I’ve done is suspicious. Because that part keeps changing. (And I wish thematically I could make this an ultimatum, but at least while chenhsi is deserving of vote, I have nothing immediate to back it up with.)

And yorgi just brought up another good point:

Also SC: I'm confused by one thing reading over you and Cabosse. Are you stating you believe Nat is scum? If so or not can you stop defending him because I get the scum feeling of protecting there scum buddy in some of your post when you do defend him. Nat has a mouse and keyboard and can answer for himself.

You’ve only attacked 2 people all game: me and Natirasha. And yet, with every attack of me, you’ve explicitly defended Natirasha.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, got sick, and incredibly sneezy/sniffly. I’ll respond about SC when I’m healthier and not on cold medicine- right now I’d rather just vote him than rebut him-

I agree that BSW’s affectation is annoying, but her actual content is far from unhelpful, and certainly compared to others, like. say. chenhsi.

---

mrfixij:

<snip>
Please elaborate. WIFOM is essentially fluff that adds nothing to conversation except the illusion of thought. Or, in more realistic terms, the illusion of practical thought. WIFOM is neither pro-town nor anti-town, it's just shoveling.

How is this not simply antitown?

[EmpTyger]

Not sure whether I’d switch to SC or Natirasha, but with the deadline still a bit away there’s no reason to leave chenhsi. Still my top suspect, and he hasn’t gotten enough scrutiny or attention for his suspicious activity. Still, we have less time than it seems until deadline, with the upcoming holidays.

---

SC:
How come you are utterly convinced hyperfocused on me, and then as soon as someone glances at BSW (with something that should not have taken 6 pages to figure out) you all of a sudden unvote me without another word and switch to BSW?

As for your purported case against me- I really think you were just trying to get something to stick, hoping that your arguments avoided scrutiny.

Point 1:

<snip>
The benefit to the Mafia is that they'll eventually find out who the vig is by process of elimination.

Well, duh. And the benefit to the town is that we’ll eventually find out who the mafia are by process of elimination. And while the town can win even if it loses all our powerroles, the mafia can’t win if it loses all their members. You’re not considering both sides of this.
I am arguing that the town gets more benefit than the mafia.

The odds of the town roleblocker hitting the Mafia roleblocker isn't very high mathematically and I fear that the vig shooting real bullets will be found and even possibly dead before the town RB locates the Mafia RB. Which is why the consensus is that your idea is bad. The Mafia want the actual vig dead before the Mafia RB is blocked himself, do they not?
<snip>

This is a very odd thing to say. I can’t think of why you care, or why you think the mafia care that much whether the mafia roleblocker is blocked. They get slightly less information, but that’s nothing to do with whether the real vigilante is dead or alive. Really curious where you’re going with this.

Point 2:

The pushy ultimatum. Again, being pushy is scummy.

How on earth do you think that this answers “

I want to you to lay out your complete case against me, now.

Not just a list of what I’ve done; I want an explanation of why you think what I’ve done is suspicious. Because that part keeps changing.”?
There’s no explanation- you listed something I did, and made a blithe generalization. So, please tell me how, considering that you admit you are aware of Natirasha’s pattern of behavior, and agreed that he was behaving antitownly, do you reach the conclusion that that action of mine was antitown?

<snip>
While I'm at it, prove that it mattered to me that your ultimatum was against Natirasha.
<snip>

1) What does that have to do with anything?
2) Why do I need to prove it?
3) Or else what? You’ll… vote me? You’ll… argue that I should be voted?
So, nope. No proof forthcoming from me. I’m calling your bluff.

Point 3:

<snip>
For me to attack this, therefore, is invalid.

So part of your case against me you admit is invalid?
<sarcasm>Why, making an invalid attack- that sounds like something unhelpful that should have been thought out completely beforehand. Now, who was it that I saw using that as a basis for their attack…</sarcasm>

---

Natirasha:
I retract any indication I gave that you don’t need to die immediately. You have played deliberately antitown. When you got called on it, you appeasingly played slightly better for a couple posts. But then when attention left you, you returned to playing deliberately antitown. Your play does nothing except make it harder for the town to win.

---

Caboose:
Kind of curious to hear what issue you have with BSW’s argument.

---

Appassionata:

By Roleplaying did you mean that BlondesoWut is "acting" his "stupid" play?

Did you have any doubt that she was “acting”? And, ignoring the voice that BSW has chosen, what of her play do you consider “stupid”? On the contrary- as Zakeri points out, she’s communicated 2 observations she’s made. (And I’ll go farther, and say that that’s not dependent on whether BSW is or isn’t really inexperienced, as Zakeri prefaced.)

[EmpTyger]

Not sure whether I’d switch to SC or Natirasha
<snip>

Actually, with a little more thought: Natirasha. Still not going to yet, but his play just is out-and-out more suspicious than SC's.

[EmpTyger]

I retract my preference for Natirasha. And, as much as I hate on principle retracting a vote before the issue’s been addressed, I also retract my preference for chenhsi. SC has worked so hard to earn a lynch ASAP- while making it look so easy- that he deserves an

unvote: chenhsi, vote: StrangerCoug

.

Also, this yorgi/Caboose/Apassionata triangle is getting mighty interesting. Particularly yorgi’s panicking.

---

SC:

<snip>
The short and sweet answer is that it's their job, not mine, to prove their innocence. Me thinking about them both being innocent also doesn't fit with my aggressive play style. In theory, I could have a knife at everybody's throat, but I am rarely set off by an entire game. But if you want someone lynched, you push and push and push.

<snip>
Again, being pushy is scummy.
<snip>

Enough. You have been spouting nonsense all game. I could also ask what’s insubstantial about BSW’s observation that Apassionata seems to be ignoring Yorgi. Or, better, how come you’re ignoring me all of a sudden. But, I see no reason to wasting time by giving you more opportunity to make baseless attacks, while risking a holiday no-lynch.

---

chenhsi/Natirasha:
I suggest you not wait until tomorrow to make your defenses, with a certain vigkill going out tonight.

---

xofelf:

<snip>
Doesn't massclaiming hurt the town in the end no matter what? Does it ever work the way it's supposed to?
<snip>

Um, how would having 3 confirmed innocents hurt the town?

---

mrfixij:

Blonde will be hard to find a scumtell for because we can expect consistently dumb play from her. As such, it's hard to find a difference of intention or information from her as opposed to any other player.

How is this different from, say, Natirasha’s play, which you haven’t said anything about?

[EmpTyger]

SC:
BSW said, essentially:
“Observation: If Apassionata is mafia, then I suspect yorgi is too for <reason>.
<reason> = Apassionata seems to be ignoring yorgi.”
1)

That’s not WIFOM.

It makes absolutely no claim about how mafia would not act.
2) I asked you what’s insubstantial about <reason> and all you could say is that the observation is insubstantial. In fact, you don’t deny that <reason> is valid- you admit that to you it’s a valid scumtell!

You opportunistically say that BSW’s observation is insubstantial when she receives attention (I really like my theory that you’re jumping onto BSW simply because she’s chosen a playstyle that makes her an easier target). And yet even when I question how, you merely bluster about WIFOM and insubstancy and do absolutely nothing to address that. And, for good measure, how is Natirasha not strictly worse than BSW using your logic? Once again you are finding a reason not to vote Natirasha… (let me guess, this is me insubstantially using WIFOM, right?)

[EmpTyger]

I would like to warn that we have much less time than the deadline would indicate; I expect coordination to be difficult if not unlikely over the holiday.

---

Appassionata:
Did you accept SC’s explanation of how BSW used WIFOM? To you, how does BSW compare to Natirasha or SC?

---

yorgi:
What do you think about Appassionata, independent of BSW? What are you currently thinking about SC? And anything to say about this?

My thoughts on BSW is that if she is scum, 1 of the two people she is accusing of being scum is her scum buddy. Therefore if we followed her, she would bus one scum, somewhat clearing her, and then cause a mislynch later.

---

SC:
Why do you refer to BSW as “he”?

SC:
BSW said, essentially:
“Observation: If Apassionata is mafia, then I suspect yorgi is too for <reason>.
<reason> = Apassionata seems to be ignoring yorgi.”
1)

That’s not WIFOM.

It makes absolutely no claim about how mafia would not act.

You missed BlondeSoWut's saying "If I were Mafia, I'd do it too", which is where I'm getting the WIFOM.

That’s *still* not WIFOM.

It *still* makes absolutely no claim about how mafia would not act.

2) I asked you what’s insubstantial about <reason> and all you could say is that the observation is insubstantial. In fact, you don’t deny that <reason> is valid- you admit that to you it’s a valid scumtell!

To me, insubstantial = with little or no backing. There's not much else I see to it. Of course I admitted the tell (in this case, distancing) as valid. However, I don't see anything solid to back it up. Apassionata could be distancing from yorgi by ignoring her, or yorgi simply may not have said anything to catch Apassionata's attention. yorgi is, however, voting BlondeSoWut for roughly the same reason that I am.[/quote]
BSW made 2 observation:
1) She suspects Appassionata is mafia because <reason1>.
2) If Appassionata is mafia, then she suspects yorgi too, because <reason2>.

You argue that BSW is mafia because <reason2> is insubstantial in proving <statement1>. Which, compared to some of your more egregious illogical attacks this game, almost isn’t even worth attacking.

And, for good measure, how is Natirasha not strictly worse than BSW using your logic?

Natirasha's just plain anti-town. BlondeSoWut is painting two people in a scummy light based on how he claims he would be playing as Mafia.
<snip>

And, once again, how is Natirasha not strictly worse than BSW using that logic?

---

BSW:
I have better things to do with my time than translate your gimmick. Over 3 people are not following you, so it’s not attributable to alignment. And I do not think this town can afford any more additional unhelpfulness to distract it. So drop it and play for real- or whatever consequence will be your responsibility. Right now, I believe from your play that you want the town to win, and so I suggest you take an amnesty of sort: henceforth drop the persona. Because as it should have become clear by now, regardless of how well your play might be, by handicapping your communication, you will harm the town. So if you persist in acting in a suboptimal way when you clearly have the option of performing better, then there’s really only one reason I can think of for that: deliberately wanting the town to fail. And if I have better things to do than translate for someone I think is protown, I certainly have better things to do than translate for someone I think isn’t. Like, vote them.

[EmpTyger]

yorgi/Appassionata:
I’ve no interest in proving anything to SC. But, in terms of getting others to lynch him- or more interesting, figuring out just why people are agreeing with him…

<snip>
Prove that, to be guilty of WIFOM, you must make a claim as to how mafia would not act as opposed to how they would act. Last time I checked, it worked either way.
<snip>

If it’s WIFOM whenever someone says “mafia would do X”, then every time anyone gives a legitimate reason for a vote, it’s WIFOM according to SC!

I mean, take an extreme example: SC’s saying if X speedlynches a confirmed innocent, and Y attacks X, it’s WIFOM if Y says “mafia would speedlynch a confirmed innocent”. Or else SC’s trying to say that there’s a significant difference between “mafia would speedlynch a confirmed innocent” and “if I were mafia, I would speedlynch a confirmed innocent”, which I think is him just trying to manufacture a case using WIFOM as a nice buzzword.
In either case, how are you agreeing with him?

And, for good measure, how is Natirasha not strictly worse than BSW using your logic?

Natirasha's just plain anti-town. BlondeSoWut is painting two people in a scummy light based on how he claims he would be playing as Mafia.
<snip>

And, once again, how is Natirasha not strictly worse than BSW using that logic?

How is my answer not an appropriate response?

SC’s answer simply states that Natirasha is strictly worse than BSW. The only way that’s an appropriate response is if he hopes that by just saying anything he’ll avoid further scrutiny. So why are you so critically aggressive towards BSW, but accept what SC says without scrutiny?

---

BSW:
Yeah, not wasting any more of my time on someone who is trying way too hard to be vigbait. Although, you could comment on how SC seems to know who you really are, and slipped up by calling you “him” instead of “her”.

---

Zakeri:
Why the unvote?

---

Appassionata:
I would also like to hear a response to what Zakeri asked you in [189].

[EmpTyger]

---

afatchic:

<snip>
Natirasha's just plain anti-town. BlondeSoWut is painting two people in a scummy light based on how he claims he would be playing as Mafia.
<snip>

---

SC:

As a side note, I think it's kind of ironic that I don't want to waste my time and energy on EmpTyger either.

Why are you being so dismissive?

I've explained my actions to him all that I can and the only thing we seem to be able to do is disagree with each other.

Nice attempt to recast my “reasons I think you're mafia” into a dismissible "disagreement".

And, for those still thinking your responses legit:

Why do you refer to BSW as “he”?

Because I'm paying more attention to my case on her than her gender.
<snip>

My next suspect is Zakeri:
However she hasn’t really posted much so I can’t really post much against her. But what I don’t like is her excuse to jump onto Natirasha. She uses the excuse because she has said she would be no help, which for multiple reasons is wrong.

Natirasha is male.
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

SC:
Dearie, you don’t get to dismiss an attack against you as “stupid trivia that has very little to do with the game”. I’m not arguing with you to convince you of anything. I don’t expect you to concede, “Why yes, EmpTyger, you’re right, I must be mafia, I’ll be toddling off now to vote myself.” I’m pointing out suspicious things that you are doing to the town, with the expectation that you will either give a plausible explanation or others will vote you.

So far this game you have:
1) Said that “being pushy is scummy”, while saying that “being pushy” was your playstyle. (This alone should be lynchworthy.)
2) Attacked a player solely for pressuring someone who you admitted was behaving suspiciously.
3) Changed your reasoning as you go along
4) Falsely accused a player of WIFOM.
5) The point to the gender slip was that either

you know BSW’s true identity (implying that you talked with her about it pregame) or you were lying about how seriously you were considering Natirasha suspicious.

Considering all the other inconsistencies in your alleged suspicion of Natirasha, I suspect the latter. You FoSed him, and said that you were “pretty sure at least one of [EmpTyger, Natirasha] is scum at this point”, and now you’re saying that you “have never had a solid case on [Natirasha]”. So, what was that FoS based on? (Early D1 distancing, perhaps?) Especially given Natirasha’s behavior: I hypothesize that you 2 are mafia together.

Also, just noticing that you never responded to this:

<snip>
I can’t think of why you care, or why you think the mafia care that much whether the mafia roleblocker is blocked. They get slightly less information, but that’s nothing to do with whether the real vigilante is dead or alive. Really curious where you’re going with this.
<snip>

Was there anything, or should I just add 6)?

[EmpTyger]

SC:
Are you conceding my points 1-3, or are you hoping that if you ignore them and only talk about 4 and 5, people will forget about the rest?

4) [WIFOM]

<snip>
To use an example (that obviously doesn't apply to this game, but still gets the point across), you'd think that if a claimed doctor survives the night, the claim must be false. But what if the Mafia decided to roleblock him? What if the Mafia decided to do nothing seeing as he or she is acting suspicious enough that there's a chance to mislynch him or her? Are there not elements of WIFOM involved in this scenario?

The relevant argument would be that mafia would *not* leave a claimed doctor alive, so yes of course that's WIFOM! (And if the mafia *do* kill the doctor- then there's *no* WIFOM! You can't secondguess something that did happen, only what didn't happen. I mean, seriously, consult a script of Princess Bride: the WIFOM scene is about how Vizzini making various inferences about how his opponent would *not* put the poison in glass A, and *not* in glass B.)

The way you are trying to twist the definition of WIFOM, every time someone accuses someone else of doing something suspicious, it's WIFOM.

5) [Natirasha's gender]
Your "defense" of your slip with BSW's gender was that you supposedly didn't were paying more attention to case than gender. So, considering how suspicious you allegedly were of Natirasha, instead of making a case against him, you correct someone about Natirasha's gender.

Now since you're trying to backpedal that you never really had a case against Natirasha, the FoS and suspicion you were expressing against him in the beginning are exposed as bogus. My theory is that it was an attempt at distancing.

6)

<snip>
The mafia RB being blocked was simply something I failed to account for when I jumped at the massclaim issue.

Wow, what a blatant lie. Not only did you account for it, but you made it the central part of your alleged reasoning for rejecting the massclaim:

<snip>
Vigilantes are power roles. The benefit to the Mafia is that they'll eventually find out who the vig is by process of elimination. The odds of the town roleblocker hitting the Mafia roleblocker isn't very high mathematically and I fear that the vig shooting real bullets will be found and even possibly dead before the town RB locates the Mafia RB. Which is why the consensus is that your idea is bad. The Mafia want the actual vig dead before the Mafia RB is blocked himself, do they not?"
<snip>

---

Natirasha/BSW/chenhsi:
You all have SC's impressively outrageous behavior and an imminent deadline to thank for why I'm not pressing against you.

[EmpTyger]

SC:
Are you conceding my points 1-3, or are you hoping that if you ignore them and only talk about 4 and 5, people will forget about the rest?

4) [WIFOM]

<snip>
To use an example (that obviously doesn't apply to this game, but still gets the point across), you'd think that if a claimed doctor survives the night, the claim must be false. But what if the Mafia decided to roleblock him? What if the Mafia decided to do nothing seeing as he or she is acting suspicious enough that there's a chance to mislynch him or her? Are there not elements of WIFOM involved in this scenario?

The relevant argument would be that mafia would *not* leave a claimed doctor alive, so yes of course that's WIFOM! (And if the mafia *do* kill the doctor- then there's *no* WIFOM! You can't secondguess something that did happen, only what didn't happen. I mean, seriously, consult a script of Princess Bride: the WIFOM scene is about how Vizzini making various inferences about how his opponent would *not* put the poison in glass A, and *not* in glass B.)

The way you are trying to twist the definition of WIFOM, every time someone accuses someone else of doing something suspicious, it's WIFOM.

5) [Natirasha's gender]
Your "defense" of your slip with BSW's gender was that you supposedly didn't were paying more attention to case than gender. So, considering how suspicious you allegedly were of Natirasha, instead of making a case against him, you correct someone about Natirasha's gender.

Now since you're trying to backpedal that you never really had a case against Natirasha, the FoS and suspicion you were expressing against him in the beginning are exposed as bogus. My theory is that it was an attempt at distancing.

6)

<snip>
The mafia RB being blocked was simply something I failed to account for when I jumped at the massclaim issue.

Wow, what a blatant lie. Not only did you account for it, but you made it the central part of your alleged reasoning for rejecting the massclaim:

<snip>
Vigilantes are power roles. The benefit to the Mafia is that they'll eventually find out who the vig is by process of elimination. The odds of the town roleblocker hitting the Mafia roleblocker isn't very high mathematically and I fear that the vig shooting real bullets will be found and even possibly dead before the town RB locates the Mafia RB. Which is why the consensus is that your idea is bad. The Mafia want the actual vig dead before the Mafia RB is blocked himself, do they not?"
<snip>

---

Natirasha/BSW/chenhsi:
You all have SC's impressively outrageous behavior and an imminent deadline to thank for why I'm not pressing against you.

[EmpTyger]

SC:
Are you conceding my points 1-3, or are you hoping that if you ignore them and only talk about 4 and 5, people will forget about the rest?

Points 1-3 are conceded.
<snip>

So far this game you have:
1) Said that “being pushy is scummy”, while saying that “being pushy” was your playstyle. (This alone should be lynchworthy.)
2) Attacked a player solely for pressuring someone who you admitted was behaving suspiciously.
3) Changed your reasoning as you go along
<snip>

Everyone by their next post needs to either vote SC or give a reason why they are not.

[EmpTyger]

Not that there’s even any time for it any more, but

I am formally retracting my massclaim suggestion

. I still think it *was* the optimal plan, but that was presuming a town that actually was going to try. Now, not only do we not have the time to do anything collectively, but since this town is heading straight to no-lynch, I fear the only chance of winning will be through vigkills.

We have Natirasha and BSW intentionally not trying. chenhsi has intentionally lurked and now is who-knows-where. xofelf, Zakeri, and I are V/LA. That’s 6 right there, and that’s without considering alignment. We already do not have a majority consensus, and the upcoming holiday week is just going to be worse.

---

Caboose:
Do you feel SC’s actions towards Natirasha have been consistent with how he has described his attitude towards Natirasha?

---

yorgi:
I do not like how you completely aboutface on Appassionata, when you had so strongly disagreed with BSW and Caboose regarding Appassionata that you voted both of them over it. On a quick reread, your entire FoS/vote pattern seems off, the way you are so quick to jump your vote over to a different target, ignoring whatever rationale led to the previous FoS/vote.

Why are you currently ignoring SC?

---

Zakeri:
Why are you ignoring SC?

---

BSW:

<snip>
Emp, when is that deadline and wut do we have to do before it? Lynch someone? What happens if we dont?
<snip>

Read the rules and figure it out for yourself. It’s rule number 2.

[EmpTyger]

I don’t see Appassionata being anywhere near as suspicious as SC, Natirasha, chenhsi, or BSW. I’d vote to avoid a no-lynch, but that’s it for now.

---

yorgi:

<snip>
I think App's votes on BSW was opportunist as hell. The vote seemed more OMGUS with a BW vote throw away vote at the same time that is why I'm voting him.
<snip>

How is your vote on Appassionata not opportunistic? You went from arguing against Appassionata’s accusers to limping onto his bandwagon, and the only reason you’re listing for it is something you yourself did!

Emp: Why are you so keen on SC?

…Did you somehow miss the 6 itemized reasons I already gave? (3 of which, I might add, SC’s only defense against was to completely ignore and try to distract with the BSW wagon.)
Why aren’t *you* so keen on SC? Do you have an innocent explanation for all 6?

---

afatchic:
Zakeri is voting Appassionata. xofelf’s last post (anywhere on site) was a week ago, indicating V/LA.
A better question would be why chenhsi has only placed a randomvote and keeps lurking.

[EmpTyger]

SC:

<snip>
(especially since my first decent scum tell on Natirasha, his being under the radar, came just yesterday).

If your “first decent scum tell” was only yesterday, then how did you FoS him 3 weeks ago?

[EmpTyger]

Caboose:

I don't think that question is relevant considering that his "case" on Nat consists of nothing but BS. His actions have been nothing, he doesn't have a vote on anyone. So, I guess the answer to your question is no. His failure to place a vote on Nat is inconsistant with is "suspicion" of Nat.

So, then why did you FoS me in [237] for pointing out evidence to that inconsistency?

My question is: Why don't SC or xolelf have a vote on anyone yet?

Am I the only one who knows that chenhsi is in this game?

[EmpTyger]

Caboose:

<snip>
SC's crap attacks are relevant. The whole gender thing isn't.

You seem remarkably insistent that SC has not slipped up regarding who a partner of his might be, despite thinking that SC is mafia. What do you think about Natirasha/SC? About BSW/SC?

<snip>
Votes left idle are useless. I think they always need to be on someone. There's no reason not to have a vote out at this point, other than to jump onto the most momentous wagon.

Okay, but how is chenhsi’s not just as useless and opportunistic?

[EmpTyger]

I don’t have enough time right now to fully express my frustration the laziness of this town. The fact is, we’re out of time. As much as I think that the reasons being given for his lynch are atrocious, I also don’t see much real hope of 3 switching to SC at this point. (Although, I would love to be pleasantly surprised.) Note that if it comes to Appassionata or no-lynch, I cannot guarantee internet access between now and deadline.

In case I’m not around tomorrow, practically everyone on the Appassionata bandwagon (except perhaps ironically SC, who even though his stated reasons deserve no leniency [see below], would at least have a quasi-legitimate “him or me” explaining why he’s trying to underhandedly squeak a Appassionata lynch by) needs to be examined based on their purported rationale for voting. SC and yorgi were so strenuously disagreeing with BSW until the votes swung.

---

SC:

Let's get the ball rolling and do something. I owed Appassionata a reread. Here it is:

Starts with a random vote, and then the case on me, then on BlondeSoWut. The case on me is fine, but he reduces the case on BlondeSoWut to crap. Just read this:

Emp, I really really really really want to win! Thats why Im playing! So Im trying to find out whos in the mafia. I think its App so I said that and I said why. I know I might die so incase I do, I said Yorgi could be in the mafia with App. I really am trying. I dont know wut more you want from me. I said who I think is in the mafia. I voted for him. I said why. I answered questions. Now people are voting for me. I dont get it.

You sound really stupid, and annoying.

Vote: BSW

This is

argumentum ad hominem

.

There’s undeniably a component of ad hom, but there’s more to it than that. Because there’s logical reason why “BSW is mafia” would follow from “BSW sounding really stupid and annoying”. As I’ve already explained, BSW is clearly choosing to behave a way that is suboptimal for the town. Less so than, say Natirasha or you, but it’s still a legitimate argument.

<snip>

I don't know for sure if anyone is mafia.
I don't like BSW and Natarisha. Apparantly, though from what I read Nat always acts like that, though I do not understand it.
BSQ, I see no logical reason why he would be doing things the way he is now...

If you have no clue who's Mafia, then why the heck are you voting?
<snip>

1) You are twisting Appassionata’s “I don’t know for sure” into “no clue”.
2) Since when is certainty a prerequisite for voting? On the contrary, the town *must* vote, even when it’s not sure- otherwise, it cannot progress.

---

magisterrain:

<snip>
i feel like the scum are trying to delay things and lead to a mislynch
<snip>

Specifics?

---

afatchic:

And Im not voting Stranger cus I think Apass has a better chance of being in the mafia.

We all

HAVE

the same chance of being in the mafia. care to explain why you think app is scummier then SC?

BSW why are you convinced app is scum?
<snip>

Given how *you* are voting, what’s your point? At the very least, answer your own question. Why didn’t you vote SC?

[EmpTyger]

I’m really tired right now and have a long week ahead of me irl, and don’t have time to reread. And because of the sitecrash, I didn’t get a chance to reread to reevaluate with SC’s alignment.

---

BSW:

Do we know if afatchic was the real vigilante or if he was the blank one?

“The blank one”? There are *2* blanks.

<cont>
Afatchic seemed to want to lynch Appass in the end there. Why do people think the scum killed him of all people? Was he on to something?

How would you answer these questions?

[EmpTyger]

Emp I wanna kno wut people think first. Wut do u think??

I think you’re so desperate to launch into whatever WIFOM-y goodness you cooked up that you slipped up when you said “the blank one” (instead of “a blank one” or “one of the blank ones”):

Do we know if afatchic was the real vigilante or if he was the blank one?

You only counted 2 vigilantes here. Meaning you gave away that you knew that Appassionata was telling the truth about being the third vigilante- meaning you’re mafia.

Vote: BlondeSoWut

<snip>
Afatchic seemed to want to lynch Appass in the end there. Why do people think the scum killed him of all people? Was he on to something?

Look, if afatchic wanted to lynch Appassionata, he would have vigkilled him. So, now, your turn. I’m sure you put so much effort on how you’d renew your argument against Appassionata last night- don’t let it go to waste.

[EmpTyger]

Just a warning- I have a lot of 12+ hour days this week, so my available mafia time is going to be less, and a reread is essentially not going to happen.

---

BSW:

Unvote: BlondeSoWut

Why don't you try claiming when you're at lynch-1 with another player FoSing you.

[EmpTyger]

yorgi:

<snip>
Why did you unvote?

As I noted when I unvoted, BSW was at lynch-1.

Also, who don’t you think is mafia?

---

Xtoxm:
Why did you unvote?

---

BSW:

Vote: BlondeSoWut

Why don’t you try not ignoring someone asking you a question when half the players are voting or FoSing you.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, I've barely been home the past 48 hours. I'll try to get caught up tomorrow, although realistically, it may not happen until Tuesday. I apologize for my absense.

-----

Vote Count:

xofelf

(0)

magisterrain

(0)

yorgi

(1) - Xtoxm

EmpTyger

(0)

BlondeSoWut

(3) - crywolf20084, Appassionata, EmpTyger

Appassionata

(0)

Xtoxm

(0)

Caboose

(0)

crywolf20084

(2) - BlondeSoWut, magisterrain

Not voting

(3) - xofelf, yorgi, Caboose

With 9 players alive, 5 votes will achieve a lynch.

Deadline for Day 2 is January 31st.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry again for absence, but finally reread. This is kind of unorganized, sorry.

The issue with SC is that he acted so guiltily, it’s hard to assign much blame to those voting him. Instead, looking at the bandwagon patterns, there are 2 cases:
A) Appassionata is innocent. Then both of the D1 bandwagons were false.
B) Appassionata is guilty. Then the town chose a false bandwagon over a true one.
I do think that blank(s) coming forward would be a good idea. Although:

ah but you see, there's a major flaw in your plan....who says that someone can't claim Blank just to get Apass lynched?

Then we lynch the other person.

Huh? If there’s a counterclaim, there will be *2* other people. 3 people claiming 2 roles.

As for mrfixij himself- he did very little. Pressed SC about the double-FoS, but dropped it when SC voted me. Attacked BSW for dumb play, while claiming that Natirasha “can be read”. Rather, he mostly lurked, attacking SC and ignoring Appassionata. So this jumped out:

<snip>
i feel like the scum are trying to delay things and lead to a mislynch
<snip>

Interesting, now that it’s known that mrfixij was mafia. I asked magis yesterday to be more specific and he ignored me.

Also found this on reread:

ok, let me see if i have this straight
<snip>
apass is a blank vig
<snip>

magis ignores the possibility that appassionata is lying- something only mafia would know for certain- going on to FoS BSW for reasoning that crywolf has already indicated is spurious. magis keeps trying to bend over backwards to defend BSW [373]

Rereading also reminded me of how awful chenhsi was. Not posting, and what he did was awful. [60] was non-committal, left a randomvote as its bandwagon went to lynch-2, without any sort of commentary on either of the arguments being made at the time. More distressing is how everyone’s ignoring him, except…

The [87] red flag. BSW tries to switch focus from me/Natirasha to Appassionata/chenhsi. Okay- but she never again refers to chenhsi, to only focus on Appassionata.

(and the aforementioned magis comment about lurkers generally)

And an observation: 4 people voted or “voted” for SC at deadline {crywolf, xofelf, magis, BSW}, 3 gave vague or simple reasons. crywolf, however, overjustifies his reasoning- despite the fact that he was already voting for SC.

The biggest thing that jumped out was how yorgi managed to join every single attack D1, often with utterly contradictory reasoning. And yet- all the way at [195], she still had “no opinion on SC”. She also, after my [230], completely ignored SC. I don’t understand how yorgi, with such attacks, had nothing to say about SC as he got lynched- neither against him nor defending him. And she really seemed to get panicked by Caboose accusing Appassionata.

I really want aposs to explain why he targeted afat and the fact no one is question this when afat is dead and the actual vig is beyond my understanding.

I thought that there was a chance he was a mafia member, what other reason would there be?

Where. I don't recall anywhere you pointed out an issue with afat. The fact he is dead and you admit to targeting him is a big issue with me right now.

Where did afatchic point out any issue with mrfixij?

Caboose defends Natirasha, and almost never focused on lurkers- the one time he did, in [255], he ignored chenhsi. He was remarkably insistent that- even though he thought SC was definitely mafia- that SC hadn’t slipped up regarding who a partner of his might be. Despite this, his play seems solid. I could see Caboose as chenhsi, BSW, or crywolf’s partner, but I’m having trouble seeing him as anyone else’s.

---

In conclusion: I think I’m still most unhappy with BSW, although I’m toying with a switch to magis. I could be talked into a vote of crywolf, except I really don’t like who’re current voting him.

---

Xtomx:

His reactions around me seem quite townly, and if he behaves I think we have much better options today.
<snip>

Convince me. Be specific.

[EmpTyger]

Caboose gets it. If the blanks claim and theres only one that isnt appass he is telling the truth. If two blanks claim appass was probably lying cus its dumb for the mafia to say the are a blank right now cus they would be as good as dead and we only have to find one more.

Going to take that much more to convince me to switch to magis or crywolf when BSW's blatantly giving claiming advice to her partner. Though, this does essentially eliminate a BSW/Caboose pairing.

[EmpTyger]

/not vigilante.

---

Caboose:
That should have read when *BSW* accused Appassionata, sorry. When rereading I had noted the yorgi/Caboose/Appassionata triangle, but didn’t note what actually set it off, and just assumed instead of checking when composing the post. Oops.

BSW accused Appassionata in [145]
Caboose attacks BSW in [158]
yorgi then proceeds to try to attack both Caboose and Appassionata in [167]. When she gets called on it, she immediately switches to BSW.

---

Xtoxm:
Why do you think you’re so protown?

---

magis:

<snip>
here i was just trying to sort out what the layout was. just because i didnt acknowledge the possibility apass was lying doesnt mean i know whether he is or isnt.
<snip>

That’s not how I read that post:

ok, let me see if i have this straight
afat was the real vig, so we have no vigs left who can actually kill anyone. so we will only lose one more person a night to the mafia.
also, there are roleblockers out there, but neither hit a good target last night obviously.
apass is a blank vig
and BSW wants to know who apass targeted because maybe she roleblocked him? at least thats my guess
somethings definitely not right with the way bsw is playing.
for now,

Major FoS on BSW

wait, if you believe someone is scummy, how could it be a bad idea to vote for them?

When 2 of the 3 players voting them are my top 2 suspects and there are only 2 mafia left.

---

yorgi:

<snip>
@Emp. I really didn't think SC stood out. I never had a chance to go back and read him so that is why I never really stated one way or another on him.
<snip>

I have a very hard time believing that you didn't think SC stood out.

-----

Vote Count:

xofelf

(0)

magisterrain

(0)

yorgi

(1) - Xtoxm

EmpTyger

(0)

BlondeSoWut

(3) - crywolf20084, Appassionata, EmpTyger

Appassionata

(0)

Xtoxm

(0)

Caboose

(0)

crywolf20084

(3) - BlondeSoWut, magisterrain, Caboose

Not voting

(2) - xofelf, yorgi

With 9 players alive, 5 votes will achieve a lynch.

Deadline for Day 2 is January 31st.

[EmpTyger]

BSW:

See why thats good now? Appass and tom r both town unless sum1 else says they r a vig. Now we have less ppl to pick from 2 lynch.
<snip>

Why didn’t you support this idea yesterday when I proposed it then?

---

crywolf:

I'm hoping that the scum do not see this so we can quick lynch them and be done with it.

<snip>
I want one of the scum to

not

see it in a couple of days and the claim vig; so then we can hurry up and quick lynch the person that claimed vig.

And since that’s what you’re hoping, you explicitly post it to ensure that the mafia won’t…?

[EmpTyger]

I am on some painkillers right now and I'm not going to even try to evaluate this before the modreveal.

[EmpTyger]

I’m trying unsuccessfully to find a reason not to replace my vote from yesterday.

Vote: BlondeSoWut

---

BSW:

Why do you see Magi as scum?

More importantly, why don’t you see xofelf or Caboose?

---

magis:

ok, im lookin right now at xofelf for (in her mind) hammering (though it was really l-1...i know we had repeatedly asked crywolf to speak up, but did you not consider letting her feel the pressure of being at l-1/l-2 at all and possibly coming forward with a claim?
<snip>

Here’s what you were saying prior to xofelf’s vote:

come on people, lets get this game movin'

bsw and crywolf have 3 votes a piece. xtoxm, yorgi and xofelf are the only ones not voting one of them.
if anyone thinks we should lynch someone other than bsw or crywolf, they should speak up now. otherwise, we need to decide who we're going to lynch. it would be very bad to have a nolynch tonight, since our one shot vig is dead.

I think you’re now trying to scapegoat xofelf into a speedlyncher since the actual speedlyncher is a confirmed innocent.

---

Xtoxm:
The case against yorgi is how he rode even single bandwagon that came along D1, but mysteriously stopped having any opinion on SC when his lynch came along. And then couldn’t find anything to do D2 (and so far D3) other than lurk and attack vigilante claims as not necessarily confirmed. Also, see my [389] and [400].

<snip>
That fact I wasn't NKed makes me wanna wifom bout Yorgi's alignment...

If you’re doing what I think you’re doing, quit it. You’ve done enough damage and given how things have gone so far I doubt we have the time for you to play further games.

---

Caboose:

<snip>
Emp's case on magis looks solid, but I would like to hear more from crywolf.

Well, now that you’ve heard more from crywolf, do you still think my case on magis looks solid?

[EmpTyger]

Xtoxm:
My “aggression” towards you is because I seriously was thinking you were deliberately playing badly to trying to bait out someone into counterclaiming you. Which I didn’t want to explicitly say for the obvious reason: because even though it is a stupid plan with little chance of success, it wasn’t hurting anything. At least, it wouldn’t be hurting anything- if it weren’t for the effects of your sloppy and bad play. Like what happened with CW. Like BSW going from lynch-1 to all-but-forgotten. Like the chance of some townsperson accepting your unsupported pronouncements that so-and-so is town merely because you’re a confirmed innocent.

Now, is that still too “fake” for you, or do you want me to get into the case where your sloppy and bad play is *not* for some strategic reason, but because you’re just putting in half-measures riding high on your confirmed-innocent horse? Because, just because you’re going to die in a glorious nightkill tonight instead of a lynch doesn’t make you any less at risk of losing this game.

I think that BSW and magis are mafia, and I’ve explained why. There’s something about yorgi I can’t figure out, and I’ve explained what. And I’ve explained all this at more than enough length. But that doesn’t do me any good if the rest of the town won’t listen and doesn’t try.

No. If you wanted to lynch her, you should have done it either D1 or yesterday.

Why don’t you take a look at why that didn’t happen.

[EmpTyger]

Xtoxm:
I am not playing any different than I always play, but I expect to be listened to seeing as I didn't speedlynch the town's roleblocker yesterday.
What's your point.

Whoever the other 3 townspeople are:
Note that even if Xtoxm decides he would rather throw a temper-tantrum, we can still form a majority- unless we get distracted. So don't.

---

magis:
Who do you think is BSW's partner? (temporarily assuming she is mafia)

---

BSW:
Who do you think is magis's partner? (temporarily assuming he is mafia)

---

yorgi:
Are you going to do anything that remotely helps to lynch mafia?

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, had an unexpected visit from sister, and heading to work now. Don't lynch until ThAdmiral gets a chance to weigh in.

[EmpTyger]

TA:
I’d like you to hold off until magis answers my question in [488]. In the meantime: Who else do you think is mafia besides BSW? What do you think of yorgi’s play?

[EmpTyger]

We are in lynch-or-lose. A misvote can lose the game.

Do not vote unless you are certain. And if you do think you’re certain, state your suspicion and give the rest of the town a chance to respond before casting a vote.

No more Xtoxms.

I reread and found something I find very interesting, but I’d really like to hear from ThAdmiral and zwet before I say anything.

[EmpTyger]

[Wow, I did a doubletake at [527].]

Edited for current population and known alignments:

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

Appassionata

StrangerCoug

(7) - Caboose,

crywolf20084

, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

, xofelf, zwetschenwasser,

BlondeSoWut

Appassionata

(3) -

afatchic

, ThAdmiral,

Zakeri

Not voting (1) -

StrangerCoug

Removing the dead innocents:

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

StrangerCoug

(7) - Caboose, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

, xofelf, zwetschenwasser,

Appassionata

(3) - ThAdmiral,
Not voting (1) -

Yet just prior, the votecount was:

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

Appassionata

StrangerCoug

(4) - Caboose,

crywolf20084

, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

Appassionata

(6) -

BlondeSoWut

,

afatchic

, ThAdmiral,

Zakeri

, zwetschenwasser,

StrangerCoug

Not voting (1) – xofelf

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

StrangerCoug

(4) - Caboose, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

Appassionata

(6) - ThAdmiral, zwetschenwasser,
Not voting (1) – xofelf

Everyone who could be mafia- with the exception of TA- voted for SC. Yet Appassionata, a claimed powerrole, had been at lynch-1, and the lynch failed.

Now, temporarily assume TA and zwet are innocent:

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

StrangerCoug

(7) - Caboose, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

, xofelf,

zwetschenwasser

,

Appassionata

(3) –

ThAdmiral

,
Not voting (1) -

BlondeSoWut

(1) -

StrangerCoug

(4) - Caboose, EmpTyger,

mrfixij

Appassionata

(6) –

]ThAdmiral

,

zwetschenwasser

,
Not voting (1) – xofelf

Then, all 3 mafia would have decided to cluster together on SC, while all ignoring Appassionata, when Appassionata had claimed a powerrole and was sitting at lynch-1 with a bandwagon of townspeople. I can’t believe that this is what happened.
Therefore,

TA and/or zwet are mafia

---

TA:

<snip>
Another way to look at it is since the mafia hasn't recieved much heat at the end of the day they are most likely not very active (therefore not in spotlight as much). In which case xofelf is probably the best pick.

Isn’t this more true of yorgi?

---

zwet:
And, for your case on Caboose?

[EmpTyger]

zwet:
No, that’s a WIFOM alert. gr I hate how I’m second-guessing myself here.

---

xofelf:
This is probably going to come down to you tomorrow. Please share your thoughts today; I am not expecting to be able to make any arguments tomorrow.

---

Xtoxm:
I hope you’re watching. See how I’m *not* casting a hasty vote?

[EmpTyger]

zwet’s dodgy preemptive vote set off [even more] alarm bells. In the morning, I’m less worried- if the mafia pairing were zwet/Caboose or zwet/xofelf, yeah, it’s possible that zwet tried to make him voting look more legitimate- but I think zwet would simply have voted me if TA were innocent.

I just still can’t shake zwet as my top choice, with that behavior and having taking another look at players in isolation (and getting a good night’s sleep). But when I look at the vote patterns D1- plus how TA is voting today- I’m really just wondering if I’m overthinking Occam’s Razor. I feel much more confident in zwet/TA than zwet/Caboose or zwet/xofelf.

Even though I think I’m worrying for nothing, I’ll give TA opportunity to unvote on principle. But unless someone has something to add, I think I’m as confident as I’m going to be.

[EmpTyger]

Vote: zwetschenwasser

[EmpTyger]

Thanks all and mod. (Although boo flakers.)

If anyone’s curious:
Mafia 106 Quicktopic

Note: I genuinely do feel that with this Open setup, a D1 vigilante/notvigilante claim was optimal for the town. I was trying pregame to figure out what to do about that, since I figured that the town might figure it out after the first claim occurred, presumably D1 from a bandwagon. My thought was that if I proposed it immediately, there might be enough of an instinctive reaction against massclaims that the idea could get buried until too late; if not, I hoped that I might get protown points for suggesting it.

The most bizarre bit is that the sitecrash switched us from no-killing to killing afatchic! Since CW targeted Caboose, who knows what might have happened otherwise.

---

mrfixij/xofelf:
Well done, and a pleasure playing with you both! (In fact, mod, would you mind editing the victory post to make it explicit that mrfixij won too?)

---

Xtoxm:
Some unsolicited advice for your next game: the game of mafia is half about figuring out who the mafia is, half about convincing people of it. It doesn’t matter how confirmed you are; calling someone mafia isn’t the only way of discrediting someone. N2, there never was any real question about whether to kill you or Appassionata first, even though I thought he was unlikely to attack either me or xofelf.

(This generally seems to me to have been the town’s downfall. Too many innocent players were playing so badly (sometimes unintentionally, sometimes deliberately) that they lost most or all of their credibility. Us mafia could play however we wanted without much fear- even when one player did stumble onto us {SC D1, Xtoxm D3, TA D4}, they couldn’t get any traction.)

---

afatchic:
Nice vigkill. If you remember, what set you off to mrfixij?

[EmpTyger]

(thanks mod)

note to self. If I vote someone in endgame and others do not jump on the same player with votes - that person is scum.

Oh, absolutely. Votehopping in endgame leads to disaster. I was actually telling the truth when I said this:

Do not vote unless you are certain. And if you do think you’re certain, state your suspicion and give the rest of the town a chance to respond before casting a vote.

The only reason I gave the town this good advice was because I was expecting you or zwet to be attacking Caboose D4 (misread I admit) so I didn't want to risk Caboose getting protown points if he were the one to say it, which I felt he might.