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

[GnKoichi]

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

[roflcopter]

*sits back to wait for a lynch*

while we're at it, can we discuss how obvtown penguins of the serengeti and yosarian2 are?

my personal opinion on both is "extremely obv town"

[Vino]

This is my first non-newbie game, so I didn't know jesters are uncommon. The game description said there may be one. I figure pointing it out might be helpful, because if we lynch a jester he wins.

GnKoichi, I did say why I thought he was jester and not scum, that was this:

His remarks read more to me of jester than blundering scum.

It was not very specific so I apologize. It was jestery in my opinion only because it was sloppy for scum play. I guess the term "very high likelihood" was strong phrasing for the associated logic, I tend to speak in absolutes too much.

After further thinking last night, his play was pretty sloppy for a jester too, so I'm not convinced he's that either. I made the list of things he'd done so I could see in short form how he'd interacted with other players.

I'm not liking Serengeti's willingness to hammer two people on such little evidence.

I'm also not liking #201.

[roflcopter]

I'm also not liking #201.

well that was vague

[Vino]

Do I have to be specific?

Upon even further thinking I realize that if jester is such a rare role, then playing it obviously is not a bad tactic, so Litral's actions are in line with jester play. Still not convinced he is one, but I prefer it to scum.

[roflcopter]

Do I have to be specific?

yes, actually

[roflcopter]

again, where is crywolf? her lurking is extremely uncharacteristic. and she has said exactly zero in this game that has bene in any way helpful.

[Natirasha]

You are sososososo lucky orangepenguin. I have a replacement ready and everything now. Whatever, this means that Knights of Cydonia replaces tyhess immediately.
Remember, unvotes=required. Yes, I am anal about that.
Prodding Crywolf.

Numberfourteen(1): Lowell
Penguins of the Serengeti(0):
Lowell(0):
Vino(1): Litral
Head_Honcho(0):
Empking's Alt(1): numberfourteen
Knights of Cydonia(0):
orangepenguin(0):
Yosarian2(0):
roflcopter(0):
MafiaSSK(2): alvinz95, Penguins of the Sarengeti
crywolf20084(0):
StrangerCoug(2): Knights of Cydonia, Empking's Alt
Litral(5): MafiaSSK, StrangerCoug, Yosarian2, roflcopter, GnKoichi
alvinz95(0):
GnKoichi(0):

To Lynch: 9
Deadline: February 17

[StrangerCoug]

I'm also not liking #201.

FoS: Vino

for coming off here as not wanting Litral to talk about his refusal to unvote Numberfourteen.

The vote at #199 is the only thing keeping me from seeing a strong Litral/Vino connection, and I actually like the reasoning for the vote.

Mod: Just to make sure, please prod crywolf20084.

[roflcopter]

The vote at #199 is the only thing keeping me from seeing a strong Litral/Vino connection, and I actually like the reasoning for the vote.

don't let the desperate late distancing fool you

[Litral]

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

Sure, why not.

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

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

three hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

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

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

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

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

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

1) Lurker lynches are bad.

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

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

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

---------

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

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

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

[Litral]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StrangerCoug]

The vote at #199 is the only thing keeping me from seeing a strong Litral/Vino connection, and I actually like the reasoning for the vote.

don't let the desperate late distancing fool you

I won't.

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

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

three hours

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

Maybe three days, as three hours is not a lot of time on this site. Now, if you're playing meatworld Mafia or a ridiculously long IRC game...

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

No it is not.

I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

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

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

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

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

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

1) Lurker lynches are bad.

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

We should still not resort to lurker lynching on Day 1.

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

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

OK, have you checked to see if he's posted elsewhere on this site? Is there a pattern as to what times he posts? To give some examples:

• Enough players on this site have less time over the weekend than during the week for some moderators (e.g. somestrangeflea) to count the weekend as one day in terms of when they issue prods.
  
• For a few months, I had less time on Tuesdays and Thursdays because I don't drive and I had to take buses to a college campus on the opposite side of town from where I live.

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

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

Yes, but read Yosarian2's #184 regarding voting lurkers.

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

I don't see much evidence for this. See above, though.

[Numberfourteen]

Ok, so here is my question, when a jester gets lynched, I know that he wins, but does that mean that everyone else loses? Does the game end if the jester is lynched? If the game does not end, then there is no reason to even consider that someone is a jester. Someone seeming "too scummy" is not a good reason to not lynch them. Even if they end up being a jester, it is not a real loss for the town. A jester is never going to post info that is helpful to the town, so it just removes a distraction from the game. Obviously if lynching a jester does end the game, then this whole paragraph is wrong.

Unvote, and Vote:Litral

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

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

There is nothing in this post about me responding 3 hours after you and lowell voted me, you actually specifically say that the reason you are leaving the vote on me is because "it is not a weak opinion at all" and "it is the sort of thing we like to hear"

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

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

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

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

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

Here you say that the reason you kept the vote on me is because the post was only 3 hours after you two voted for me... The reason you voted me was to pressure me to post, and I posted. Seems right to me. I do keep up with this game, I usually check it at least daily. Unfortunately, playing in multiple games, each game doesn't always get equal attention. It was an important part of the other game, and this game was a big discussion that I was completely lost in. So when you voted me, I took the time to reread several pages to try and understand better

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

I guess you never said my post was pro town, but that is the feeling I got from your first post. "It is not a weak opinion" and "It is the thing we like to hear" sounds like you thought the post was pro town to me.

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

The vote at #199 is the only thing keeping me from seeing a strong Litral/Vino connection, and I actually like the reasoning for the vote.

don't let the desperate late distancing fool you

Oh god this is such a townie post. Let it stand for eternity as a example to the rest of us amateurs.

[Lowell]

199 sounds a lot like giving up. Pending a vote-count I'll likely add my vote. Also, the jester talk is retarded.

In other news, I'm part of a

very large mason group

. I apologize, mason-buddies, if this is supposed to be a secret. But seeing as how I think there's little to no chance that you're all actually pro-town, I don't see the reason not to reveal this. Also claiming mason is like my favorite thing to do.

[roflcopter]

and numberfourteen joins the ranks of the obviously town

[roflcopter]

oh hey lowell claimed mason. i believe him.

lowell, how large? and i'm guessing based on the wording of your post that your role pm does not gaurantee the alignment of your partners?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Confirming.

[StrangerCoug]

I believe the mason claim at #215 for now, and I also don't believe that everybody in the mason group Lowell speaks of is likely to be town given its claimed size.

[Vino]

This game is moving a lot faster than I am used to.

I'm also not liking #201.

FoS: Vino

for coming off here as not wanting Litral to talk about his refusal to unvote Numberfourteen.

What? When/how did I do that? What's it have to do with that quote?

Reason I don't like 201 is the willingness to unilaterally pardon two other players so early in the game. Serengeti and Yosarian don't read as scum to me either, but I'm not going to write them off as town so soon, I've made that mistake before. It makes you look paired with at least one of them.

Also talking so nonchalantly about lynching bothers me. I figure that much would be obvious to everybody here, so I'm surprised I am bothering having to explain it.

I also believe Lowell's mason claim, but if I understand correctly that doesn't mean he's not scum right? Some mason can be traitorous, and his masonites wouldn't know?

Knight, off topic: Isn't that a Muse song? Does the name have any significance?

[roflcopter]

Reason I don't like 201 is the willingness to unilaterally pardon two other players so early in the game. Serengeti and Yosarian don't read as scum to me either, but I'm not going to write them off as town so soon

i thought it might be as much. scum really just can't stand when town recognize other town, it makes getting mislynches so much more of a problem later.

yep, stick a fork in this one, he's done

[Lowell]

oh hey lowell claimed mason. i believe him.

lowell, how large? and i'm guessing based on the wording of your post that your role pm does not gaurantee the alignment of your partners?

No, it doesn't. And, given the size of the group, having them all confirmed town would be way too much of an advantage.

That said, allow me to take a moment to rant on mixed mason groups.

THEY'RE POINTLESS

[/rant]

[Knight of Cydonia]

Knight, off topic: Isn't that a Muse song? Does the name have any significance?

Yup. No significance though, I just like the name.

Lowell - may I ask, if you're in a mixed mason group, what, precisely, was the point of revealing it D1?

[Lowell]

Knight, off topic: Isn't that a Muse song? Does the name have any significance?

Yup. No significance though, I just like the name.

Lowell - may I ask, if you're in a mixed mason group, what, precisely, was the point of revealing it D1?

Fun.