Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[mith]

Dude, DP is drunk or something.

Re: the bike thing; as "bike" seems a little vague
(deliberately, perhaps?), I'll throw out that it could also be a motorcycle (the four horsemen, or even the other four horsemen), if it's not Them or Anathema.

That's all for now, I have to go.

[mith]

korais, what's left to sort out about the bike business? It could be any of 13+ different roles, and so we likely won't get any clues about it until at least a few nights have passed.

Vote: lazarusmoth

. My first votes usually have something to do with suspecting that a "random" vote is not actually random, and this one is no different. This one is a bit weaker, but the odds of 10 real random votes not showing any repeats is only around 16%. I suspect one of the latter voters is doing the trendy random thing just to fit in, avoiding those that have been voted for so they don't attract the first second vote thing.

(Hey, at least it's better than roland's logic )

[mith]

Fuldu, IS may seem misguided in his voting, but he's not the sort that would make a night 1 vig kill. At least, not in any game I've seen.

Regarding the setup, if it's really 4/4/2, this should be an easy win for the town, barring some really strong powers in the groups. Until we have more info though, I'll give a

VGOMS

to those suggesting it; while it perhaps makes sense story-wise, it's terrible for balance. Thus, we might have some scum suggesting they are weaker than they are.

[mith]

You people are so spoiled.

(Vague Gesture of Mild Suspicion)

[mith]

Unvote, Vote: mepmuff

"Random" votes *possibly* avoiding players with votes is one thing. Deliberately avoiding those without votes to hurry a lynch is worse.

Particularly when it's me.

Seriously guys, we're three pages in, and we're still doing random votes? Nonsense.

[mith]

LSIO

SA

WBMCFTOO.

[mith]

Stewie, granted, I haven't played with him in ages, but I've played a ton of games with him in the past, and can't ever remember him doing it.

The real point is that if we're thinking the bike kill is Them, it would seem to imply it's a group kill rather than just IS, so the OMG IS WOULD DO THAT! logic is irrelevant.

Anyway, he's dead now, so we'll probably find out soon enough if it was him. Like I said, speculating too much won't really help us with no role claims. We'll just have to wait and see.

[mith]

Woohoo, it's

Crap Logic

(tm) time!

As amusing as the acronyms were (read: not amusing), I'd like to play some mafia here.

Read: I have no sense of humor, so I will act superior and pretend to have some reasoning behind my vote.

50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

Read: Random.

If this is actually a serious reason, you have problems. I will note that a. I've used VGOMS before, and it's not my fault none of you were around for it, b. The second one was a direct response to the Mod, who was also participating in the fun, and c. if you really want to insist on looking for suspicion in strange places, it's probably best placed on the followers.

Specifically:

I wanna play too!

THMCA?

IWPT! would've been much funnier.

50% because I think IS would, in fact, use a vig kill on night 1 if he had it. He's very good at miraculously knowing who the bad guys are, I wouldn't be surprised if he took a chance.

Read: waaaaaaa, mith disagreed with me I'll vote for him.

This is about the logical equivalent to Stewie's brilliant:

IS does use vigi kill night one, or so I've heard. The only time I've seen it happen is on an ongoing game, and I really don't know if it actually happened or not, but I'm assuming it did.

Seriously, if you guys really think he does it, how hard would it be to look through games and find examples? I've already reminded you twice that I haven't played much with him in a while. It doesn't even matter to me, though, because *as I said in my last post*:

The real point is that if we're thinking the bike kill is Them, it would seem to imply it's a group kill rather than just IS, so the OMG IS WOULD DO THAT! logic is irrelevant.

Anyway, he's dead now, so we'll probably find out soon enough if it was him.

If it was him, and only him, then we won't have any more such kills, right? If it was his group (which it might be! I've never disagreed with that) of Them, whether IS specifically would use it or not is completely irrelevant. There's some chance (small, but anyway) that they could be a scum group or otherwise have to use it, and it would've been discussed by the group anyway.

So, to sum up, half of your reason for voting for me is that you *think* (but won't back up) that IS would do a night one vig kill, which has very little bearing on the game.

Also, speculating is really the ONLY thing we can do at this point, so I'm not sure I really follow the "speculating too much won't really help us" logic.

1. There's a big difference between speculating, and speculating

too much

. My point was that since we'll almost certainly find out some more about at least that kill in particular as the game goes on, it is a waste of time to talk about it endlessly, much less use it as a reason to vote for me!

2. No, it's not the only think we can do. We can stop random voting on pages 3 and 4, we can use actual reasons instead of Crap Logic (tm), and we can have a sense of humor, because, hey, this is supposed to be fun.

After all that, it would basically be a toss up whether I stayed on mempuff or switched to korais, as I now am convinced that both are scum. However:

I'm also not surprised the mafia went for him.

Does this strike anyone else as a really odd thing to say? It has nothing whatsoever to do with his "reason" for voting for me. It almost makes me think he's not surprised because he's in that group; it could just be that more of that trying to look superior thing, though.

It just stands out at me, and so it earns korais the

OMGUS

.

Unvote: mepmuff, Vote: korais666

. I still think mepmuff is scum, though.

(I'd reveal what the second acronym means, but now I'm worried I'll get modkilled for it. )

[mith]

Huh, I didn't read it the other way at all, and you'd think if anyone would misinterpret it it'd be me. Is that what you were voting on, DP, or is there something else?

[mith]

vote: mith 50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

Read: I have no sense of humor, so I will act superior and pretend to have some reasoning behind my vote.

50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

If this is actually a serious reason, you have problems.

No, it wasn't, and I'm sorry for not being funny. I won't even try in the future.

and we can have a sense of humor, because, hey, this is supposed to be fun.

Again, I get your point, and you won't see me at the mafiascum open mic.

Huh. I'd love to know what your reason was for changing what I quoted. It's not really something you can do accidentally.

Y'know, I wasn't *really* suspicious before, it was, admittedly, a vote based on half-assed piece of evidence. Yes, I voted for you because I disagreed with you, but looking over the first three pages of posts, I really didn't see anything that stood out as suspicious, so I found someone who said something iffy, and went after it.

And as far as backing up my IS claim, I haven't played a game with him when he was a vigilante (unless you count Gandalf from hobbitmaf), but my point was that he likes to play on the fringe and take risks.

(Out of order because I want to address these together)

So let me get this straight. You read through three and a half pages, and couldn't find *anything* more suspicious than something you disagreed with based on *no* evidence at all? Something that was entirely irrelevant to the discussion anyway, and that was only being discussed because people keep claiming it, but they don't actually believe it enough to go look for the verification? Heck, I've even called both Fuldu and Stewie out on it, and neither of them has posted a shred of evidence that IS would do it.

That first paragraph is an insult to ass halves everywhere. As for the second, again, this is something easily verifiable if it's true, but you would rather base it on what *you know* of how he likes to play. And this somehow outweighs what I know, having played in, oh, twice as many games with him, and having met him in meatworld twice?

I said in my first post about it that *I don't actually know* whether he would use the kill these days, but you're going to have to do better than "I know better than you for no reason whatsoever".

However, at this point, I

am

suspicious of you, because hyperspazzing over something small and insignificant early in the game is something that I've seen others and myself do as mafia in the past.

I'm sorry, but when I have *just* made a point about random voting still going on, and then someone votes for me for some completely idiotic reason because they can't find anything better, they're getting their post ripped apart.

If you want to see hyperspazzing though, I suggest you read: Minvitational 2

My comment about the mafia going after IS was sort of a subtle hint that I'm surprised nobody protected him. Admittedly, it was worded poorly and was too subtle, but that's what I was going for.

...and how, exactly, does this address the following?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with his "reason" for voting for me.

Not only that, but it doesn't even make sense. I'm not surprised he died, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he hadn't, either. I'm certainly not surprised a doctor didn't protect him in a game with multiple killers; even if the doc was absolutely sure he'd be targeted, he or she wouldn't have known IS wasn't scum (and we aren't even sure of it *now*).

But thanks for ruling out that you have a doc-like role, anyway. At this rate, we'll have you confessing your sins by page 6.

As for Gaspode, I didn't really get the scummy vibe from the *first* post, but the second one is rather interesting. I'll have another read of it and the votes for him after lunch.

[mith]

Bah, came home early, and now I don't have time to look at things. I'll post tomorrow.

[mith]

A bit of time to slice up his most recent post.

Also, maybe he likes to make votes with less backing than I do.

Ironic, considering I've been fighting against all the random/nonsense votes, but anyway.

For all I know, maybe mith even has other motives; he has been known to do things like set traps for scum or make votes simply for information purposes.

Hm. This does come off odd. It's true, I do, though, it's not so black and white as it's made out there (just because the scum-o-meter goes off does not mean I'm not going to work my posts for informational purposes, and vice versa). What's odd though is that he's pointing it out at all. It's not really a reason to avoid voting for someone. "Man, mith has caught us another scum... oh, wait, it might just be a trap, maybe mith isn't really convinced, I'll hold off."... yeah, that doesn't really work, huh? So, maybe he only mentions this because he was particularly concerned with *not* falling into one of my traps?

Also, while the first vote usually just calls attention to a suspicious person, the next few can get a bandwagon moving, and sometimes push it out of control. I didn't think korais or mepmuff were past the "being called to attention" phase, so I didn't advance either bandwagon. My post was basically a VGOMS Wink without the boldfaced type.

Some people are too aggressive with votes, some too cautious. ~shrug~ I don't find anything particularly odd here, though it's something like 15 to lynch, isn't it? We're hardly close to a lynching on either of you.

The main problem I have here is that if you insist on going slowly, what's the point of a random vote? But that's not enough for me to switch votes on, I don't think. I'll stick with korais, at least until I see them both post again.

[mith]

Another misinterpretation. I did not mean this to be a reason not to follow you specifically. I meant it to support my argument that your reasons for voting are not always solid.

Which is irrelevant if you claim to agree with most of those reasons...

(Stewie and Gaspode) Regarding the "50%" thing... well, for one thing, you can't really put a number on suspicion that's actually meaningful. I'm surprised Stewie even included something like this in an argument, and equally surprised Gaspode didn't jump on him for it. (Just Stewie) Also, it seems a bit silly to suggest that since it's 50% for you, it should be exactly the same for everyone else. Maybe Gaspode will vote when he's "60% sure", whatever that means; is that extra 10% going to slow the game down horribly? Of course not. And finally, agreeing with 50% of the points made by someone who is 100% sure (and I'm not) does not equally you being 50% sure anyway. Perhaps the one point he disagrees with is the really big one for me. Bad math, crap logic.

So, small FOS to you both. I still don't see nearly enough to vote for Gaspode, and I'm surprised that the wagon is as large as it is.

[mith]

Oh, almost forgot:

HOS: Aelyn.

I would, in fact, switch if I weren't so convinced korais is scum.

That's

hackney

humpenscrump

hyperemesis

hand

of suspicion.

[mith]

Aelyn: I thought it was obvious. The whole voting for Gaspode on a bad premise and then sticking with your vote.

korais666:

I know who I'm playing mafia with here, and I know there are experienced players in this game, and I know the majority of the people in this game go back and look over old posts during the game. It would be completely idiotic for me to try and "sneak in" a fake quote, hoping everyone took my word that that's what you said. That being said, you know that it was a mistake, and I'm astonished you even bothered to post that comment at all. A simple "you misquoted me" would have been enough, or even posting the correct quote yourself if you were feeling nice and wanted to make sure everyone understood what you were talking about.

For your piece of mind, I will explain. I had to cut and paste that quote a couple times because I was having some trouble with my browser, and by accident (yes, by accident) I put lines where they shouldn't have been. The correct quote is:

~shrug~ That came off as a bit more of an accusation than I intended. I agree, it's not something one would do to try to fool anyone. I was just completely baffled as to how you can manage to change *part* of a quote by accident. But anyway.

Okay, now you're pretty much just insulting me for the hell of it.

Um... no? You called your evidence "half-assed", yet there wasn't actually any evidence there. There was nothing remotely personal about it. Though I did find the phrase "ass halves" quite amusing, and we've gathered that you probably didn't.

Where did I say I knew him better than you? I say what I know from my experience. I can't base my opinions off of what you know about people.

And besides, show me an example of him *not* using a night 1 vig kill and I'd be more apt to believe you. As of now, it seems to be your guess vs. my guess.

Er, well, you kinda implied you think you know better when you mentioned it as a reason for voting for me. As for the rest, you seem to be missing the point that

I don't care

whether he would use it or not. As I mentioned, I am only discussing it because people keep arguing and voting for me for no reason. Part of the problem here is that I *can't* show you all the games I've played with IS in, as they simply aren't around any more. All I'm saying is that I never remember him Vig killing on night one, which is a hell of a lot more than you're saying ("I've never seen him do it either, but *I* think he would."). I don't have time for a complete search, but a quick look doesn't reveal any games in which he even had a normal Vig role, other than the ongoing one.

Well, the alternative is not participating at all. I found what I viewed (and still view) as a strange thing to say, so I brought it out.

Beyond the fact that it doesn't even matter, why would I make up a theory on whether IS would do that or not? If I knew I was wrong, it would be a simple matter for someone to point it out (what with people like DP in the game), and "fooling" people wouldn't accomplish anything anyway. And no, the alternative isn't not participating. There was plenty to go through to find something better than this nonsense.

What exactly are you trying to prove by this? That you're prone to hyperspazzing? That you're just as capable of it now as you were 28 months ago?

Perhaps that different people have different opinions on what a long post is? My first post at you was *not* that long, and only appeared that way because I quoted a lot; it's just what I do.

Also, there's a difference between here and there. In the minivitational you wrote a long post in response to other long posts. Here, I wrote 5 sentences, and you wrote a long post, which included telling me how much I suck several times for no logical reason.

Actually, that post was the result of Antrax and I going back and forth for a while. Kinda like you and I are doing now. You see how your post is longer than mine was, and how this one will be longer than yours? Anyway, no, that was not me "hyperspazzing". That was me going through a post and analyzing it. It looks long and scary because I quote everything, so people don't have to go back and look for what I'm talking about.And hell, part of my post was me talking about the relative humor value of acronyms. That's not exactly what I'd call freaking out.

I never once said you suck. I believe that I said:

1. You have no sense of humor (which you agreed with).
2. If the acronym thing was a serious reason, you have problems (you admitted your evidence was half-assed, so I assume it *wasn't* serious).
3. Your take on IS was the logical equivalent of Stewie's (because it was).
4. You used Crap Logic (tm) (because you did).

And I believe that covers "for no logical reason". You can hardly blame me for ripping your post apart when you *agree* that it was "half-assed" at best.

Your vote appears to be because according to you A) I have no sense of humor and am bad at mafia (which falls under same category as "spite for the acronyms") and B) because you disagree with me as far as the IS scenario and speculation being important.

So, to sum up, half of your reason for voting for me is that you feel that the IS scenario doesn't matter right now and that I am speculating too much. Yet these are both your opinions, specifically ones we differ on, and not tangible pieces of evidence. I'm getting the same sense of "waaaaaaa, korais disagreed with me I'll vote for him" you were talking about before.

Wow, a bit of a sarcastic sense of humor after all. Shame the premise is wrong. I am voting for you because:

1. You voted for me, based on Crap Logic (tm).
2. You admitted your evidence was bad, but kept your vote on me anyway, because I was "hyperspazzing". Except I wasn't.
3. You refuse to look for any verification to your IS-vig claim, despite that the burden of proof lies with you. You voted for me because of it, whereas I have shown several times that it is completely irrelevant, yet I have still put more effort into finding out the truth.
4. Having failed to win any points in the logic competition, you use bad analogies and sarcasm to try to misrepresent what I say.
5. You use the classicly scummy Unvote/FOS to bail out.

In other words, your posting style has been entirely consistent with what I usually see from scum when I go after them like this.

[mith]

And that last one seems to be completely random, too. GH, he was voting for you for not putting the vote on mepmuff in the first place, adding it later just makes you look like you're trying to avoid suspicion harder than you're trying to find scum. And he's already unvoted you!

but I took calling my post "an insult to ass halves everywhere" as an insult.

I wasn't calling your *post* an insult, just the paragraph with "half-assed piece of evidence".

When did that become a scum move? What I was saying was "Electra's post is scummier than yours, but I'm still keeping an eye on you, moreso than everyone else." That seems pretty normal when it comes to a long back-and-forth discussion.

It's not *always* scummy. Everything depends on context. If you want to find examples though, the more information the better, it's a minor point anyway.

Anyway, now that korais has practically admitted he's scum like I said he would, here's my current list of other suspects (mostly already mentioned, but I'll want a summary for later):

Aelyn - the "largest" reason for voting someone is a mistake, and the vote stays... the justification seems an after thought.
Genocide Heart - moves into the 3 spot with that latest post, at least until he fills us in on who he's talking to.
mepmuff - still here for the "random" vote, hasn't done anything to change my mind yet.
Stewie - olio is completely right. Just because we have a "most suspicious" and they've already got a large bandwagon... that means we shouldn't even mention those who we also find suspicious? Smells of jumping on a bandwagon and justifying your vote for just that player, without looking at anyone else, which is quite scummy.

Die die die...

[mith]

This logic is flawed, as I have voted.

No, it's not, because you were prodded into it.

And before anyone asks, I still think mepmuff's admitted random vote bandwagonry is deserving of my vote.

Who would ask? I agree. Doesn't mean you're not scummy scum scum too. Heck, my second most suspicious is voting for my first, and my third is voting for my fourth. Fun stuff, maybe you scum will wipe each other out and leave the rest of us alone.

Not mentioning ≠ not looking.

And we only have your word that you were looking if you don't mention it. I'm not saying I'd vote for you for this, particularly not with 4 better candidates, but mentioning things you think of and notice can only help the town, and not bringing it up in this case is suspicious.

[mith]

Now I haven't looked excruciatingly closely at the situation, but can someone please tell me how korais has "virtually admitted that he's scum"?

I was being a bit silly, obviously, but I was talking about:

Anyway, I see what you're trying to say now

Which seems odd to me, as most of what I was "trying" to say was that he's scum (and why). Yet, now that he finally understands my reasons, he appears to have no defense for them.

Now we have made a lot of progress, but it's basically the same ten people that have been posting all day. Where are all the lurkers? Start posting, people!

I'll second that.

Main ideas are barely important until you've lynched someone.

Huh?

I just took a quick look at Coron's posts thus far. All incredibly short, and pretty much fluff. Considering how much as been posted so far, I'd expect at least *some* content in posts beyond "I don't think that's suspicious" or "I agree" or whatever he was trying to say in that last post.

[mith]

Oh boy, so much on this page to rip into. Shame I don't have time right now. You can expect a post from me this evening.

[mith]

Too tired for a long post, which should make JD happy, but I just looked back over Fuldu's posts (on a hunch) and found the reason he voted for Gaspode in the first place a bit odd, and then the fact that he didn't post again until his post on this page to Peachy (where, along with subsequent posts, he seems to be pushing very hard for a Gaspode lynch) even odder. Therefore, I'd like to see Fuldu (specifically him) post what he finds scummy about Gaspode, so I can analyze it to death and go back to annoying JD.

[mith]

Doh, should be last page, obviously. Unless I'm being psychic.

[mith]

Ok. I don't find that particular thing as scummy as you do, and I think there is more to Peachy's points than she posted and/or noticed (specifically, as she points out, it is Aelyn who is making these suspicious posts linking them, not Gaspode; this could be because they are scum together, but it could also be because Aelyn is trying to link himself to Gaspode for other reasons, or because Aelyn is just acting weird about the bandwagon).

However, your response doesn't set off any warning bells, which is what the real point was.

I am happy with my vote, or with switching to Aelyn if something starts there, but I am still unconvinced about Gaspode. I would like to hear more from DP about it than his three one line posts, as well. He's being unusually quiet.

[mith]

No... but if gaspode is not scum, then we have nothing on aelyn -- no reasons to believe she is scum.

Er, yeah we do. I don't actually find Peachy's argument all that convincing as far as them being scum together is concerned, simply because Aelyn didn't mention Gaspode completely at random; he was acting on an ongoing bandwagon. However, his behavior is quite clearly weird (at least to a few of us). Mafia quite often act weird jumping on and off bandwagons.

[mith]

I'm thinking there's not much use trying to link people together at this point.

So perhaps if we get the votes on Gaspode up a bit, we can make more of the possible links?

And mepmuff moves back up to number 2 on The List (tm).

Stewie, I don't believe that Peachy's claim is "If Gaspode is scum, then Aelyn is scum." I believe it's "They're probably scum together." As such, if we're going to base things *just* on that conclusion, there is no reason to vote for *either* of them above the other; you have to consider external factors, such as Gaspode already having votes, one of them looking suspicious for other reasons, or the fact that all of the posts Peachy is looking at are from Aelyn, rather than Gaspode.

I don't think it's any more reasonable to say "if we lynch Gaspode, and he's scum, then Aelyn probably is too" than to say "if we lynch Aelyn, and he's scum, then Gaspode probably is too", based just on what Peachy said. The problem is that you're *not* just basing things on what Peachy said, you're also basing it on what you think about Gaspode.

All that said, I don't come to Peachy's conclusion anyway. I come to the conclusion that Aelyn's posts are highly suspicious, but don't suggest anything in particular about Gaspode. I might come to her conclusion if Gaspode had not already been bandwagoned, but his name was already out there. I see it more as an attempt by Aelyn to join the bandwagon on a flimsy excuse, and then when he was called on it, to try to back out ASAP. That doesn't mean they *aren't* scum together, but I find it more likely Aelyn is scum and not with Gaspode, and Gaspode is either innocent or in a separate group.

I'm still wondering what's up with DP. I thought for a moment that he might have a "can't say more than a sentence or two" role or something, but if there's any post constraining roles out there they're more likely to be of the Sister Mary Loquacious variety.

[mith]

~shrug~ Last game I played with you was Minvitational 4, and day one of that was 6 months ago. I haven't got any idea what the last large game I played with you was.

Looking at Minv. 4 though, yeah, short posts (a lot more of them, but that's due to less players, probably). So you're not acting inconsistent at least. However, there's a difference between trying "to put too much intelligence in the day 1 choice" and occasionally posting more than one line. Mostly it annoys me because I have only the vaguest of reads on you.

I disagree anyway; sure, there's a line where everyone is picking at stuff on day 1 that isn't going to lead anywhere, and we're to page 50 with no end in sight, but I've had too many day 1 successes to be too casual about it.

[mith]

Huh, korais seems to have disappeared.

Anyway, I'm happy with my vote, but am also fine with a mepmuff or Aelyn lynching. Will probably switch in a few days if people don't realize how scummy korais is in that time.

[mith]

My favorite part is:

Still wondering why we haven't lynched Aleyn yet, and also glad people are seeing what I am saying.

Given that I gave Aelyn the dreaded HOS almost a week before Coron jumped on Peachy's logic.

Coron, there's a grand total of 4 people voting for Aelyn. One of them is you, one is Peachy, who posted her logic and voted before you even considered Aelyn, one is olio, who seems to be voting more because Gaspode and Aelyn are the two main lynch candidates at the moment and he doesn't feel Gaspode is scummy, and SubtleTactix does mention agreeing with your conclusion (sorta), but less because of what you were saying than because he looked through things on his own. People aren't "seeing what you're" saying, because you have said very little of any substance thus far.

If you want to trust your gut more than "crap" we post, fair enough. Don't expect anyone to listen to you on that basis, though. We have no idea how reliable your "gut" is anyway (judging by your record I saw in some post in your sig, I would guess "not very"), and even if we knew it was pretty good, you could still be scum leading us astray.

Do you seriously think it's some new breakthrough you've discovered to look at all the posts by someone and see if they seem scummy? Anyone can do that, and most people *do*, whenever bandwagons start if not before. Until you posted why you think he's scum, we have no reason to listen to a word you say.

Now, others have already addressed your "reasoning", but let's look at it in detail:

1-2. Don't get me started on humor in Mafia games again. And as for the "nothing useful" part... perhaps you should try viewing all *your* posts.
3. This is not a reason. This is you coming in with the assumption that he is scum, and trying desperately to make everything look that way.
4-5. Not related, so why mention them?
6. You mean someone posted things with little content early on day 1? Other than you? I'm shocked. You're right, he must be scum.
7-12. The actual suspicious bits, yet you post more about the first six posts than these.
13. Worthless? It was a perfectly valid counter to Electra's point, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't excuse her previous 6 posts, but again you seem to be desperately putting suspicion on everything you can find.
14. You mean someone questioned the logic of someone who was voting for him? I'm shocked. You're right, he must be scum.
15. He was addressing confusion at his gender, and it wasn't the whole post. He was, in fact, asking you for clarification on what your actual reasons were behind the "gut"...
16. And then 4 days later had to ask again because your entire argument was "just look at him, it's obvious!".

Then we get:

Don't expect me to do that ever again. It was painful and it barely scratches the surface.

Which amuses me, as you seem to expect everyone else to go through his posts and figure out why he's suspicious, but it's "painful" for you to post it yourself. It wasn't even that long of a post, as you did a terribly incomplete job of explaining anything of substance. Refer to: Picking through everything someone says 101

Given that, at worst, Coron is scum scum scum, and at best he's completely useless to the town and seems content to remain so,

Unvote: korais, Vote: Coron

. Besides, if he keeps this up I'm going to blow a fuse being sarcastic at him.

[mith]

I didn't even realize PeaceBringer was playing... on the other hand, after watching NYPD unfold, I don't know that PB is acting scummy so much as careless.

See this is why I hella didn't want to have to do that.

Because people might *gasp* find you suspicious? That's the whole point of making you do it. If your reasoning makes sense, it will hold up to posting. If it doesn't, then not making you post it just lets you get away with it if you're scum. If everyone just posts little comments nearly void of content, the town suffers.

None of the reasons by themselves are valid, but when put together they are.

1. If a reason is not *valid* on its own, it's not actually a reason. It's just fluff.
2. I suspect what you meant that none of the reasons are worth a vote on their own; in theory, sure, you can get enough of a case against someone without any single particularly strong piece of evidence. In this particular case, you come up well short of anything useful.

Next post is almost unreadable because he was "really pissed off". Joy. I'll note here that I would probably vote for Coron just based on *his* posting style; the difference is, I could go into detail what elements of his style are scummy (several cases of False Dilemma, quite emotional for no real reason, noncommittal, lots of little non-content comments, and so on).

The problem is it's NOT zero, you think small things don't matter? How often does scum mess up bigtime? once in every three games? I'd rather not rely on random lynchings and claimed cop following.

Small things do matter. There's a difference between small things and "things that aren't reasons but were thrown in to make my post look more impressive because I don't have a real argument".

Also: Mith, you really like linking to other games where you pick apart people's posts. Are you trying to intimidate us?

~shrug~ If I have something to illustrate a point, I'll use it. In this case though, it doubles as a guide to how I play, as I haven't ever played with quite a few of you.

And I have to say if I ever saw a bandwagon groing too fast for the evidence available it's the one against Coron.

[mith]

I have a cold.

Reading the last two pages has lifted my mood considerably, though. I am perfectly happy with my vote.

[mith]

Over my cold, and finally have a bit of a break. Very tired though.

Not much new to comment on, other than that given that the mods haven't been around that much I'm inclined to think Coron was actually waiting for an answer as opposed to just stalling for no reason. Doesn't affect where my vote will be, though. Coron is far more suspicious than Gaspode IMO.

[mith]

Shouldn't Coron be back? Bored now.

[mith]

I find it curious that we had to wait so long in order for Coron to reveal the part of his claim that he *didn't* have to check on.

First off I'm a mason. Secondly I can give you the name of the mason if nessisary(the point I needed clarified).

I presume you mean name the person you're a mason with? It's only a two-person group?

It looks to me like what he meant to say was "name of the mason

group

", though this seems to go against the rules laid out in the first post. Clarification here would be nice. I can't help wondering if he left it deliberately ambiguous.

I don't really buy the claim at this point, but it looks like Gaspode is going to be lynched anyway.

[mith]

Oops, missed his post on this page. Scratch that middle bit.

[mith]

Bah?

The internet access here is crappy, so give me til Friday to put up a proper defense, but I would not be surprised if I came up guilty to certain investigations. I am also pretty sure I can prove my role, at least so far as what I can claim.

A few votes don't worry me, but you're going to get a heck of a rant if you accidentally lynch me before I have a chance to respond.

[mith]

This is amusing. The first day lasted two months and resulted in no lynch, and now some of you can't wait a day or two? Rushing into things is horrible play, and quite suspicious.

Vote: olio

I'm not sure what part of my previous post wasn't clear, but to elaborate, I was at a solar physics conference at Cambridge, the computers they had available for internet access were pathetic, and when I posted I only had a couple minutes before the next session. I wanted to read the rules to make sure of how much I could say, and I hate rushing posts.

Now, on to address things:

My role is essentially a vigilante type. If I'm reading the rules correctly, I'm not allowed to say exactly what the details of me using my ability are (i.e., how often I can use it, and so on). However, I will say that I haven't used it yet, and I *can* show that to you, simply by making a kill tonight (or whenever the town decides it would be useful) and you noting that it is a different type of kill. It's also possible you will be able to get an idea of what my role might be and why I might appear as scum to certain investigators; I can't say that for certain, but it seems likely.

I find it rather incredible that so many people have voted already, considering the type of game we're in. Do you honestly think that things will be so clear as that in this large a game with this many groups? We're going to have some guilties that can't be found by every investigator, and we're going to have some innocents appear guilty to some. I don't have the book at hand (net cafe), but I can really only think of one character that would be likely to get perfectly "nice" results, and given Pooky's had to confirm his "sanity" at all, it should be clear that he doesn't have it (I doubt anyone does, but who knows).

Stop acting like a bunch of mindless sheep and think, please.

The only role I can think of that I would have credited "guilty to some investigations" was Crowley

Well... I guess Sister Mary Loquacious might be guilty-ish

As pointed out, I can not name a role, so I am not going to list possibilities here including mine. However, I can think of several roles that could appear guilty sometimes. Grab the book and think about it some more. You'll feel pretty stupid if you lynch me and find out what my role is.

I think that's all. I don't see how it could possibly hurt the town to give me a day to show myself, but whatever... just think before you vote.

[mith]

The problem with that Mith is that it's quite possible that the Horsemen are a group and have a different kill mechanism for whichever Horseman they choose to do the killing or it could be that you're part of Satan's group and have a choice of kill mechanism and you choose the one that seems more righteous or what not.

For the first, that is certainly possible, but I am quite sure you would be able to tell the difference between my killing method and that. For the second... that's a bit of a reach, and not particularly in theme. The hell folk in the book are not exactly subtle about their evilness.

Obviously I can't prove 100% that I am innocent. That's just the way things go in Theme games. It's simply bad play though to lynch straight away when there's a good chance at getting more information.

And of course I disagree that I am the best you have to go on. olio's posts are just insane, for instance. I question the motives of anyone that advocates pushing through a lynch before plenty of information is milked out of things.

Seol: http://www.mist.ac.uk/mistsr05.html (not much up yet, but anyway)

[mith]

(It's solar-terrestrial, which is not quite the same thing. But anyway.)

[mith]

Basically, it boils down to - Trust Your Cop unless you've got a damn good reason not to. Can you give me a damn good reason?

Here's one:

My results are not guilty/innocent, they however do point very much so in one direction as to his probable alignment.

This is the problem with quick lynching on cop claims. As I said before, usually the information you get in games like this is incomplete, and when the "cop" hasn't even read the book, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

The confusion is where I suspected it would be. I am confident someone who has read the book will figure it out. Meanwhile, I will check with the mod about these questions.

I'll address the rest of Seol's post later, but I find this interesting:

On the other hand, the whole "give me [time] to put up a proper defence" is often a way for scum to buy time to cool a wagon and fabricate a roleclaim. You've got a good alternative explanation... but then, I think a player of your calibre always would do.

I haven't played a lot recently, and I'm pretty sure I've never played with you before. If I had, you would know that I don't stall for time, even when I'm scum. Having good excuses is not a sign of a good player... a good player doesn't *need* to stall for time. But anyway, it's a bit silly to suggest that I arranged the conference as an excuse to buy some time, and I know you're not suggesting I'm just making it up (you could easily verify that I was there anyway).

Anyway, I am three away, and even our claimed cop is suggesting that there is at least something worth talking about; don't be a moron and add a vote to "put more pressure" on me.

[mith]

Some of this is a bit irrelevant after Pooky's post, but anyway:

Well, we do have a claimed cop result which has been verified as not insane, paranoid or naive on you. That's often enough for a lynch. Plus the last thing we want now is another day that lasts two months and ends in a no-lynch. I'm not saying I approve of lynching you before you get the chance to respond - I don't - but to hold up yesterday as an example doesn't really hold.

Which is why I called it "amusing"... that wasn't intended as a defense, though IMO super-fast lynches tend to hurt the town more than help.

You are claiming a role which you cannot substantiate until we go to night, and can only substantiate by killing someone.

That's not strictly true. I am already confident a careful reader can get some idea of my role, if they have knowledge of the books. Using my ability would simply make it clearer.

The trouble here is that if you are telling the truth, the only way you can do that is by taking a pot-shot into the town - you'd be trading the life of one player for your own.

~shrug~ I know I'm innocent, so that's a perfectly reasonable proposition from my point of view.

This is worth considering if we can take out someone who looks scummier than you - but to date, the only real information we have points at you. So we'd be trading down - agreeing to kill someone who's less scummy-looking than you. I don't like the sound of that plan.

And you don't, so that is perfectly reasonable from yours.

Furthermore, what we'd get tomorrow is a different type of kill - but I can't think of any killing method that is unambiguously town. The best we can do is verify you're capable of killing and might be pro-town - I don't see how you'd prove yourself.

I didn't say I could prove I'm innocent. There is always doubt in these things. However, I think my role will be guessable after I use my ability, so my *role* will be proven. And you can then decide for yourself if that role would be evil or not.

Translation - We can't trust cops.

Now, that might be true - it might be that Pooky's result is inaccurate for flavour reasons, rather than the simple Sane/Paranoid/Naive/Insane scheme.

Addressed by Pooky, obviously. However, I'll point out that *I* know I'm innocent, so it was a reasonable for me to make the assumption that Pooky is not an ordinary sane cop, even if there weren't thematic considerations.

But if we approach the game with this mindset, bearing in mind we can't claim names or even describe our roles in sufficient detail to properly explain results, then the cops are useless.

I disagree with this, actually. Pooky's role is most likely quite useful; I just happen to know he missed on me. Whether I can convince you of that, but I think I have a pretty good chance of doing so, and I don't think any scum he might catch will be as able to defend themselves.

In addition, we'll be able to get a clearer picture from our information when we have more of it. This is only day 2, after all.

I'd rather not disregard such a potentially powerful role, at least not before getting some indication of how reliable (or not) the cops can be. The best way of finding that out now is lynching you. Of course, if you come up as having a clearly pro-town role, then we'll need to take a good long look at Pooky.

In case I didn't make it clear enough, I think it is very unlikely that Pooky is completely making up that he checked me. That doesn't make him a confirmed innocent, but it doesn't mean he should be lynched, or even a top suspect, if I am lynched.

Furthermore, it's not as if vig is even a particularly powerful role - it's at its best when we can use it as a way of mopping up known scum, but if we can't trust our cops - which seems to be the position you're advocating - then your value to the town is much decreased. It'd be different if you had a really powerful pro-town role - then verification gambits are worth considering - but you don't, so you're not worth the effort and risk.

Well, one, I'll point out that you don't actually *know* for sure how powerful my role is; I can't make a completely claim, after all (this is not to suggest that I *do* have a powerful role, but it's worth pointing out). Two, I didn't suggest we don't trust our cops. Three, what's the risk here, exactly? If I'm screwing with you, I get lynched either way, and no later than tomorrow if the town chooses to have me kill tonight. That might be risking later in the game, but not on day 2. More importantly, if I can successfully show you I'm innocent, we don't waste a lynch.

I also think it interesting that you conceded that Pooky investigated you straight away - that indicates that you know your role is potentially scummy-looking. That might be true of a townie, but it's (almost) always true of scum.

Actually, I did not say that Pooky investigated me straight away. It was only after his second post that I was reasonably sure. In my original post, I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if I *did* look bad to some investigators, and hopefully prompted Pooky to think about what his actual result was (which is the same thing you later asked for explicitly). If he'd said he got a firm guilty/innocent, then I would have surely gotten lynched, but you would've had a good reason to go after him tomorrow.

The partial probability type argument doesn't hold here anyway. It may be the case that most scum look scummy, but whether they would mention it in a defense?

Well, if we've got a result on you and you can't prove you're innocent, then what's your defence?

I can't give you certainties. Neither can Pooky. All I am asking is that people consider the possibilities, and *all* the information available (it's easy to ignore posting styles and such when there's a cop claim out, but Mafia is a game of psychology more than anything; a well-designed game should only occasionally be won because of investigators).

Similarly, you haven't played much with me yet, so you probably don't know how cynical I can be - I rarely take anyone's stated reasons for their behaviour at face value.

Ah, but can I take *that* at face value?

I don't think most of these votes were to pressure you - I think they were to lynch you.

That was jab at PeaceBringer. Putting "pressure" on someone with 10/14 votes is a bit silly. It's not a *huge* deal in the grand scheme of things, but the possibility of an accidental lynch before a defense is properly considered is always there (note also Electra's accidental vote; this sort of thing does happen).

All right, we've heard what he has to say. vote: mith

Yes, it's possible that our cop is wrong, or even scum, but sometimes those are the risks you gotta take.

Huge

FOS: Locus Cosecant

You've heard some of what I had to say. You also heard the cop who is accusing me asking me questions, which he clearly thinks are worth having answers to... yet while I wait on the mods, you throw another vote on me. Why? What purpose would it possibly serve to lynch me *before* I give those answers, before you hear Pooky's opinion on them, and before the people that have read the book have a chance to think about it in light of this new information?

Now then, while I typed this, I got a response, so:

Does your character possess a horse? Maybe with Glowing Red eyes?

No. (At least, so far as the book tells us. Maybe my character owns a farm somewhere.)

Does your character breathe or play with fire in any way?

No.

Does your character easily unnerve others/give bad vibes?

Quite possibly.

Does your character have wings?

No.

Is your character evil?

Possibly a bit mean, but not in the good vs. evil sense you mean.

Any more questions?

[mith]

Seol, as Aelyn suggests, I was joking about the farm thing. Think that type of thing would be a bit specific as far as claiming goes anyway.

olio, it may seem an obvious thing to you to say "I'm a vig-type, give me more time", but given that I had only a handful of minutes and had to check on some other things as well, I think I did pretty well to type out what I did. You'll just have to decide for yourself whether I was stalling for more time to make something up (or whether someone with my experience would even need to, if I were lying).

The important things were said in that first post; that I could appear scummy to some investigations, and that I could demonstrate my ability. The ability that I can demonstrate would be a bit useless for scum to claim anyway. If it's not convincing, I'll be lynched anyway, and what good did it do me? Buy me an extra day to kill? If I were in a scum group, my group could do that anyway, and there would be the chance that the one picked as my target was *also* in my group, so you get a two-for-one deal.

Regardless, it is completely ridiculous to *not* give me a little time to post properly, even if you think I'm making it up. The town gains *nothing* from lynching me before I post a full defense, loses some information and an innocent. I didn't even waste much of your precious time, I got back early and posted Thursday. The fact that you actually pushed people to not wait suggests that you don't want the town discussing things too much. My vote stays, though Locus is right up there with you.

Not much longer left here, and I don't know if I'll be back on today, but I'll probably drag myself out sometime tomorrow if there are any further questions. Normal routine should resume on Monday.

[mith]

First, ~kicks site~. Really need to look into new hosting.

I hadn't got as far ahead as this, but are you suggesting we nominate a target for you in the thread?

Well, I was going off the post above mine (Aelyn's), and this is also the usual way things are done in such situations. There are other ways to go about it. The town could nominate several, and I pick one off the list. Or I just pick someone myself. I didn't have anything in particular in mind myself; I don't mind the town picking a method for choosing a target any more than I mind the town picking a target.
However,

There's a number of problems with that - the possibility of double-kills (as, depending on the mod, you don't always see both kill methods, meaning that it might not confirm you), the issue of protection (as it's not unheard of for scum groups to contain doctors), the possibility of choosing a more powerful town role and outing them, and of course the question of "how do we choose?".

For the first, this is much more likely if my target isn't known in advance, actually. If my target is known, it's would be quite foolish of the scum to target them as well. Why would they waste a kill on someone who would die anyway just to keep me from showing my kill? Simpler to just kill me if they're worried about me.

For the second, no, it's not unheard of. Consider though that scum are only likely to protect fellow scum, and so the target is likely to be under considerable suspicion anyway (they could protect someone not in their group, but again, to what purpose? Better to use their protection on someone in their group, as there are other kills out there, and putting suspicion on someone who is going to be killed anyway seems rather pointless).

More importantly, what you're missing on both of these points is that any problems that could happen are not risks to the town, they're risks to me! The town will always have the option of lynching me tomorrow, no matter the outcome. If something does go wrong, I will of course argue for another chance; I know I'm innocent, and so it would be contrary to the town's best interest for me to not argue about it. But the option is there to kill me. You'll just have more information to make a better decision tomorrow.

For the third, I think you're thinking about this the wrong way. This sort of thing is essentially a way for the town to get an extra lynch. What you're basically saying is that rather than discuss and find two lynch candidates today (lynching one and me killing the other), plus still having me as an option based on what happens tonight, you think we should give up those two chances and just lynch me now instead.

There's always the chance of outing someone powerful; that's just the nature of lynchings. Isn't that a risk worth taking, though, rather than giving the scum groups another free night? This line of thinking can quickly lead to the no-lynch/wait-for-the-cop style of play that is boring and generally worse for the town in theme games.

because as I see it the potential for things going wrong whilst verifying you is high, I don't believe we'll suffer too badly from losing your role, and we get feedback on Pooky - and of course, there's nothing said so far that means you can't be an SK-type or just lying about everything

Again, there's no real risk here for the town. If something goes wrong, I probably get lynched tomorrow anyway. I disagree about the "suffer too badly" part; that isn't to say that lynching me is going to doom the town or anything, but vigilante roles can certainly shift the balance in the favor of the town toward the end of the game. I don't think you get much feedback on Pooky either way; I think it is pretty certain that he is not lying about having information, and that he's not just getting completely random results. What he got on me makes sense for my role. What may still be in doubt is his actual alignment, but you don't learn anything about that from lynching me. And yes, there is always the possibility I am lying, but you certainly can't *lose* information about that by waiting until tomorrow. You will have the results of my attempt at verification to help you make a decision.

[mith]

It is? I've never been in a "verify vigilante" situation before, and had assumed we'd just let you do your own thing without having your target made public. Yes, there are problems with that approach too (I don't like that one that much either) but I'd assumed that was our default starting point.

The main benefit to the town in picking the target is that you have a small added chance of catching me if I'm lying, if the target is in a group with me (well, that, or I'd have to kill one of my own for you, and that would be pretty foolish in a big game with more than one killer, if it's even allowed). However, I probably went too far with suggesting it's the "usual" way... it's been at least a year since I've been in a game with a similar situation, things may have changed.

Were they to do this, they'd effectively be trading their nightkill for guaranteeing that you'll be the next day's lynch. It's certainly arguable that's a worthwhile trade.

Well, almost anything is "arguable", but I think it's a losing argument in this case because of the multiple groups. It's easy to say they're trading their night kill as if it's a small thing, but what they're actually trading is a (pretty decent) chance to hit one of the other groups, and what they're guaranteeing is that they have a day off from worrying about being lynched (but also that the other groups have a day off from that as well; if I'm *in* another group, I'll likely get caught out in a lie anyway, and they always have the option of killing me themselves).

Assuming that you're telling the truth, you attempt to nightkill that person and fail. We wake up and see no kill, so we lynch you. Effectively, it's trading a night's protection (that, if used on their fellow scum, is unlikely to make any difference to anything anyway) for a guaranteed lynch the following day. I think that's definitely a worthwhile trade.

Sure, it's "unlikely" that their protection will be necessary... maybe 5-10%? However, there's a pretty decent chance that my target is in another group, so that hurts them, and as above, a guaranteed lynch is not actually that huge a bonus. The only way it helps them is if they're worried about doing something stupid during the day and getting lynched based on that (any new information that points the finger at them could easily be revealed before I'm lynched, so framing me doesn't help them there).

Plus, if the target's a member of a scum group with a protector, they'll know to protect them.

Which is the real risk here, but because I disagree that they would protect my target otherwise, I come to the conclusion that this helps us, as when I'm shown innocent you have someone to look closely at.

I forgot to mention this before, but keep in mind that a scum-doc is not *that* likely in this game. I can't think of any possibilities there, unless Famine starves colds. (That's a joke.)

They're risks to the chance of success of the verification plan, and consequently to you. If you are innocent, I'd like the plan to give you the best possible chance of demonstrating it.

Good. That's why we're discussing things. However, I don't mind a bit more risk in the plan demonstrating my innocence if it's balanced by a gain of information if I fail. We just have to decide what the best balance is.

Wouldn't it be better to at least try to vig scum? And if you're a townie, as you claim, wouldn't you think that vigging you is the only way to guarantee not to do that? This looks to me like a stone-cold bluff, and an attempt to make yourself look more pro-town.

That was my initial thought... he was going pretty hard after me earlier, so it's quite odd that he would offer himself up as a target unless he didn't think he would be taken up on it. It's also not a terribly bad gamble if he's scum to risk me picking him - considering where my vote is, I might've picked him anyway if it was left to me. And "normal townie" would be difficult to prove or (more importantly) disprove.

On the other hand, I don't know whether he's insane enough to try it.

For now, I will

Unvote: olio

, as if we decide he might be bluffing, he can be the target, and the Locus wagon has more momentum. I'll wait about voting though, until we decide who's choosing the target and how.

[mith]

Just noticing that korais hasn't posted in a month (granted, night lasted a lot of that). Any other lurkers?

[mith]

I'm not waiting for people to turn up. I'm waiting for people to say something about who they think is suspicious. Too many people not giving their opinions, not enough lynching someone other than me.

[mith]

My suggestion is that everyone post someone they're suspicious of and why, rather than sitting around waiting for vote counts and lurkers. While the lurkers are annoying and need to be taken care of, it's not going to be resolved until the mods turn up, so we might as well talk about something constructive until then.

My top three at the moment are: Locus, korais (the stuff from yesterday still) and PeaceBringer (though my feeling about him might be skewed by the fact that he posts very short posts).

Also, anyone that has any suggestions on how my target should be picked, go for it. I've given the three main options as I see them, but if there's any more, or you think we should go one particular way rather than another, we need to hear it.

[mith]

And everyone else, this game isn't just between me and mith!

It's not a game between us at all, unless you'rescum. Are you admitting to being scum?

I don't post lengthy votes, I frequently don't explain votes, it is how I play. I don't find the quote for quote wars all that helpful and a clog of info myself. Right now I am just watchign and reading cause I don't feel good about a vote anywhere at the moment.

Well, first, I *didn't* add you to my list because of your short posts. I voted for you because in those short posts I find suspicious wording. I mentioned the shortness because were you to have posted more, I might have a better idea of you than I do now. All I have now is a vague suspicion.

That said, I'm seeing this sort of attitude toward Mafia far too often for my taste. There was a bit of it in Coron yesterday, and I also saw this from you in NYPD. It's careless, it's hurtful to the town, and frankly, it's incredibly dull.

There is no such thing as too much information in Mafia. Yes, everything posted might not be helpful, but at least if it's posted it's *there* for the town to look at later on, if needed. You could perhaps make the argument that such play is personally helpful in a meta game sense (people are reluctant to vote for you for being unhelpful and careless if it's what you do every game, so there's less risk of giving yourself away)... except that it's not really helpful at all; if you're town, and you think you know who's scum, *tell us why*. Otherwise, your reasoning is wasted. If you're Mafia, and you want to lead the town astray, *talk them into it*. Otherwise you have no control over things, and Mafia has become no more than a dice game from your perspective.

I really don't understand why someone would sign up for so many games when they barely participate in any of them. Wouldn't you get more enjoyment from trying really hard in a handful of games, win or lose, rather than siging up for every game you can and making people frustrated with you?

So, with a slight suggestion that a new "Lynch All Short Posters" meta game strategy wouldn't be a terrible idea, I am going to

Vote: PeaceBringer

, on the basis that he doesn't seem to care whether the town gets it right, the suspicious "pressure" wording, and because he can't seem to come up with a single player he finds *suspicious* or any reasons for that. And hopefully we'll have some replacements and more active players soon.

[mith]

Bleh, second sentence of second paragraph should say "I listed you" instead of "I voted for you".

[mith]

I do interact.

You do? Would you care to point out an example of this in this game, before now? So far I have seen a handful of votes and unvotes, and a single FOS. No discussion, no reasons, certainly no humor or banter, just mindless sheepness.

I don't like long posts.

I'll be the first to admit that I tend to post a lot more than most people. I have my reasons for that, and it works for me. That said, I'm not even asking you, or anyone, to a post 2000 word dissection or anything like that. All of your posts in this game other than the last two (when you were attacked) have been 25 words or less, and there have been a couple extended periods where you said nothing at all. This suggests that either you were trying to stay under the radar (=scummy), or are not particularly connected to the game.

NYPD was a game that didn't keep my interest level... but then to turn around and attack someone who plays differently and annoyed you over lack of being connected to an experimental game in the past is very scummy

I wasn't attacking you because of NYPD; I was referring to it as an example. It is easy enough to look at your other games and see that this is common behavior for you; I find it interesting that you are defending the shortness of your posts as a "school of play", yet are also making excuses for why your posts are so short in the two games mentioned.

I find it not always helpful to reveal all thoughts. A vote without explanation can be for many reasons.

Yes. A vote without explanation can be for lots of reasons, some of them good... but some of them scummy. This is just a rehash of what we already went through with Coron yesterday. No explanation = no accountability.

Most of your votes in this particular game fall under the bandwagon category anyway, it's not as though there's anything subtle going on there.

I don't find the quote for quote wars all that helpful and a clog of info myself.

I personally don't find long drawn out posts helpful. Often they are redunant, make the same nonesense over and over. Quote wars are very dull and usually end up as pissing contests and don't tell much of anything...

Oh, and I find long, drawn out, rambling posts which ultimately say nothing to be dull and excessive, especially when there is a distinct lack of any humor.

Given that you manage to repeat yourself so much in two relatively short posts, I can understand why you might be wary of longer ones. (Look! Humor!)

Also given that thinking I cannot rest easy knowing you can kill, therefore unvote, vote mith

You know, I might take you more seriously if you could even manage to keep up with whether you're voting or not.

And, finally, despite the statement that

since what mith says seems believable by those familiar with material then I would hold off.

he now votes for me again because I can kill. It's not as though anything has changed other than that you're getting a bit of heat. Getting nervous? My actual reasons for voting for you remain unaddressed, and this post just makes me more confident.

[mith]

Busy week this week, with a meeting today... should get a chance to post something tonight.

[mith]

I got no probelm with vote anaylsis- we are on day 2, nothing really to analyze yet. We can look at who was on and off that vote but nothing really helpful.(1) I have also found in my recent experience that sometimes it is better to not say everything you think. And if you go back to all my games, some games I tried to analyze, others not. And you know when you get night killed a few times it does lend toward one being more careful about thoughts shared.(2) If you recall Fuldu, some of my lengthies posts were more about defending game style.

I have no problem with posts that entail real anaylsis, even if they are lenghty. I have not seen any lengthy posts in this game that contained anything but pissing contests and redundency.(3) I did say Mith put on a good defense, thus the unvote. Then he goes on to find a target to take heat off of him, which is me.(4) And forgive me, if he is protown and wants me out of a game and can kill, nothing I can do about that.(5) So FOS to FUldu for misrepresentation of my play.

1. Two things here. One, we've 20 pages here, there's bound to be *something* to analyze. Two, it is easy to say there is nothing helpful as a defense for not posting anything of substance and to try to discredit people analyzing *your* posts. That doesn't make it so.

2. The goal of Mafia is not personal survival, but your side winning. I can not think of a single player who has been successful over a long period of time that worries too much about getting night killed.

3. I believe that's the fourth time you've said something along those lines? Does anyone else find this terribly amusing?

So far, I have seen a tendency from you to pass off anything you disagree with as "useless", "redundency", etc. You would be much more convincing if you said "hey, look, this part here is wrong, and here's why".

4. Yes, that's exactly what I did, except not. For one thing, the "heat" was already pretty much off me at that point. For another, I was trying to get people to *play the game* rather than sitting around asking for replacements and vote counts, and so I listed you as one of *three* people I found suspicious. Rather than post something useful yourself, you decided that you should defend your style of play (which at that point wasn't actually a factor for you being listed, but rather a possible reason I might be "off" with you), and so I then voted for you.

5. Except, oh, exactly what you're doing? Voting for me, hoping I get lynched?

GH-- where did I state Mith was lying. He is spinning crap logic about my play, but no where did I state that Mith is lying.(6) He has indicated his view that I should die and wants to get me lynched. How can I view his play as anything other then not helpful at the moment and likely scummy.(7)

6. Wow. This is new. He's voting for me, and yet won't even put himself out on a limb far enough to say that he thinks I'm *lying* about my pro-town role claim?

7. Well, at least you were't completely redund

a

nt and used a word other than "useless".

I've already given three reasons why I think you're scum, PB. Add to them that you refuse to address any of them.

[mith]

I was referring specifically to vote analysis. I stated I have no problem with vote analysis. You need a coupel days of data to really begin looking at that.

I strongly disagree, as should be clear from a couple of my votes yesterday. Anyway, what *I* was talking about is statements like:

I have no problem with posts that entail real anaylsis, even if they are lenghty. I have not seen any lengthy posts in this game that contained anything but pissing contests and redundency.

where you basically say that there hasn't been *any* real analysis so far in this game, and the implication that you *do* have a problem with forms of analysis other than voting. Yet, rather than even attempting to explain why you think particluar posts are not real analysis, you just give them labels and ignore them. Such behavior has a positive correlation with scumminess.

yes, I full well understand that. I am only dealing with this game.

I'm not even sure how the second sentence here is connected to the first, but this particular line is probably irrelevant for the moment, so I'll leave it.

3. I believe that's the fourth time you've said something along those lines? Does anyone else find this terribly amusing?

So far, I have seen a tendency from you to pass off anything you disagree with as "useless", "redundency", etc. You would be much more convincing if you said "hey, look, this part here is wrong, and here's why".

spin.

How ironic. I point out that you tend to call things useless and redundant (go read your posts), and you call it spin, which amounts to the same thing. Congrats on proving me wrong.

excuse me, you attacked my play this game, pure and simple.

Yes, I attacked your play, under the general heading of "short posts with no reasoning", after you insisted on defending it despite it not being the reason I was suspicious of you. That

does not

equate to:

Then he goes on to find a target to take heat off of him, which is me.

Which is the bit I was responding to.

You made a concerted effort to throw stuff at me.

If by concerted effort you mean that I went through your posts and point out the bits I found scummy, then yes, guilty as charged. It is no more or less than I do with anyone.

voting for you because you have the stated intent of removing me from the game and admit to being able to kill at night

Yet another non sequitur. Your original statement was that there was nothing you could do about it if I wanted you out of the game, and I pointed out that voting for me and hoping I get lynched is a pretty obvious thing you could do about it. How does this statement follow?

you can kill, I cannot do anything to keep you from killing me.

Ditto, and again, completely irrelevant to what I said.

lets see your stated reasons, hmm I don't post long posts, I don't explain votes, you saw me disconntect from NYPD, I have gotten defensive here-so that must be scummy.

Well, first, I *didn't* add you to my list because of your short posts.

Vote: PeaceBringer, on the basis that he doesn't seem to care whether the town gets it right, the suspicious "pressure" wording, and because he can't seem to come up with a single player he finds *suspicious* or any reasons for that.

I wasn't attacking you because of NYPD; I was referring to it as an example.

I know you can read better than this.

[mith]

Er, how many votes on me does that make? Please don't rushlynch me before I have a chance to prove my innocence.

This was posted... almost a week ago? Part of that may have been spent waiting on the mod (though, shame on anyone for being too lazy to count votes on their own if needed), but then we get:

Voting me to get the day over with won't work. We should go with our investigation on mith.

Is that your brilliant defense? *One* person posted that they were voting for you to get day over with, and you respond to that, rather than all the other people who are quite suspicious of your behavior. "Well, by all means, lynch me for trusting the cop" and "We should go with our investigation on mith" don't hold up when the cop is voting for you.

So how do we want to do this, guys? Lynch Locus, and I kill... PB? Gaspode or korais? Or should everyone unvote Locus and I'll target him, and we'll lynch someone else?

[mith]

Ditto. Though I agree with "Would you mind prodding or replacing some people, instead of setting a deadline?"

[mith]

...I don't even know what to say to that, really. I guess I can see why you might think that Locus is claiming what I think you think he's claiming (read it again, it makes sense), but it's tenuous at best, and obviously not what I am claiming anyway if other people are involved. If someone else could confirm my role, they would have done so by now. Beyond that, it seems a bit idiotic to vote for me *before* hearing what laz and Gen have to say, even without all the assumptions you're making; it's not as though by letting him off you would be saving them from being revealed as whatever they may be. And, whether Locus can or can not confirm, which we'll see, that doesn't change the argument about whether I should be given the night or not, and so the sudden declaration that "scum with one-shot abilities (or other odd roles that are fairly common in themed games) often gain a great deal by stalling an extra day" is quite odd.

[mith]

Oh, and Pooky, I plan on it, that's why I keep asking who you guys *want* me to target. I think those of us who actually discussed it (all three of us) agreed that it would be best if the town chose anyway.

[mith]

Well, I think *almost* everything I would have said at this point has been said. Two things though:

how about we no lynch

, don't lose a protown player and have mith kill pb? see how that works better?
so...

need a new bandwagon

. unvote

Does Coron always make this little sense?

vote: Doom Cow for six super short posts that either cast votes/unvotes or apologize for being inactive

I'm not against this bandwagon exactly (lynching lurkers is certainly better than a no lynch). However, do we really learn anything from it? With so many not posting and no sign of prodding, it is more likely that DoomCow's posting pattern has more to do with him not actually being around that anything malicious on his part. I'm much more suspicious of people like PB and roland who are posting *lots* of short content-less posts.

My vote remains for now. I'm not going to panic about a deadline that hasn't even been set, I know I'll be around to switch if I need to. If I do switch, it would be to Locus at the moment, as

a. He's not me.
b. That's got to be one of the least convincing "claim"s I've ever seen.

[mith]

Come on mods. Find a third, if you need to. I'm still having fun arguing with everyone in sight, but this game is going nowhere.

[mith]

With the deadline set, and my sister visiting for the weekend, I will go ahead and

Unvote: PeaceBringer, Vote: Locus Cosecant

. Right now I am planning on killing PB, but if something different is decided that's fine too.

DoomCow's most recent post seems a bit odd. Beyond the same stuff again that I said regarding Coron and PB, why make a claim with so few votes on you?

[mith]

Something is fishy about this, there's way too many people confirming each other.

Unvote: Locus

for now.

I'm going back and forth on whether Fuldu or olio is suspicious. I also remain unconvinced of Gaspode being scum.

Hm.

I think I will

Vote: roland

. I strongly suggest that the next few votes go on either him or Gaspode, and if the Gaspode wagon gains steam I will switch to it before the deadline. And also, of course, that everyone get their votes off Locus and I. I also request that the mods ignore the votes of any inactive players that are voting for the purposes of the deadline rule.

[mith]

And, what DL said. If they're scum, they're unlikely to survive very long anyway. I still think there's something fishy going on, and wouldn't be at all surprised if one of them was scum and not the others, but we can do better, even with the limited time.

[mith]

I don't think there's any reason that either of us has to be suspicious.

I didn't make myself very clear there; what I meant was that I was going back and forth on each of you individually, not that I think one or the other has to be scum. The exchange was just a little odd, but I'll look at it more closely tomorrow if I'm still alive.

What. The. Hell. With everything going on, you're starting another bandwagon target? We've got less than 48 hours to find 8 or more votes on someone, and pare down the extraneous votes to avoid a no-lynch. If you know something about Gaspode's innocence, you might as well just say it at this point.

I don't think Gaspode is scum. He was also only on 2 when I posted. My intention was to simply give the next few voters an option, because I knew I would be on to switch if needed. Now that it's clear which way we're going, I will do so. I mean, we still have a day, it used to be a pretty reasonable assumption that most everyone in the game would check in that time. I keep forgetting that so many players don't pay attention, I guess.

Unvote: roland, Vote: Gaspode

My target will be PB, unless something drastic changes there. There have been plenty of people posting agreement with that.

roland, like PB, I was not voting for you because of the lack of posts and short posts, but because of the content of those short posts. Also, this:

FOS: Genocide. We don't really have time for this...

Is uncalled for IMO, as the only reason we're in this situation is because of all the people like you not really participating until now.

Gaspode- 8 (Fuldu, DarkLight, roland, Pooky, Mr. Flay, Coron, olio, mith)
mith- 5 (Electra (hasn't posted in almost a month), Iammars (hasn't posted in two weeks), Locus Cosecant, PeaceBringer, SinisterOverlord (hasn't posted in almost a month))
Locus Cosecant- 4 (SubtleTactix, Thoth (hasn't posted in two weeks), Aelyn, The_Machine86)
DoomCow- 1 (Peachy)

DP - not playing!
Seol
Genocide Heart
Gaspode
JD - hasn't posted all day
Pitbull - has posted once, after replacing PBuG
DoomCow
korais - hasn't posted all day

There are currently as many players who have not posted in the past two weeks as there are on the largest bandwagon. This is just sad. We're pretty close to having enough to lynch, though.

[mith]

A bit annoying when we're forced to panic because of a bandwagon, and then the mods aren't even around to enforce it.

[mith]

~shakes head~ I knew there was a chance PB would turn out to be pro-town, but surely he could have done a better job defending himself. I'm not having a good game as far as the newer players go, that's for sure.

Will need to reread some tonight (need to get some things done for once at Uni.) and hopefully I'll find someone else to go after.

[mith]

Doh, no connection last night, so I haven't had a chance to read. Hopefully I will have one tonight; otherwise, I'll post a bit more tomorrow.

But to the matter at hand:

HOS: mith I'm not fond of this. Now we know mith has the ability he says he does, but not whether he's pro-town or not. He's also claimed a Miller-type role that shows up guilty to investigations, so we (probably) can't verify him via our cops. Role-claims are illegal, which is what I'd ask for in this situation.

Most of this can be addressed by: Read the book.

And your comment is "well, I'll find someone else to go after"? If you can't come up with a way to actually ascertain your worth to the town, we may have to lynch you on principle at this point. After all, there weren't any "extra" kills last night, so you could have been using a mafia/SK bluff.

I was refering to voting, not killing. You know, that thing we do during the day that usually decides whether the town wins or not? As for the rest, it seems based on ignorance rather than suspicion. Refer to "Read the book".

mith, we've probably asked this before, but have you killed before? And did you get to choose the manner in which you executed PeaceBringer?

No, and no.

[mith]

Right, we still have way too many people not actually playing. Hopefully we can get some replacements soon. Given that there were only two deaths, and one from a vig, it's looking quite possible that at least some of our scum are among them. If we don't get some replacements or modkilling soon, we'll probably have to start weeding them out, which is annoying as I'd much rather them be active and defending themselves.

For now, though, I will

Vote: rolandofthewhite

, for reasons stated yesterday.

[mith]

Is it that hard to use the little post filter and search for your name in my posts?

Mostly, just my ongoing crusade against people not posting anything of substance. We have enough people not posting at all as it is. You apologized yesterday for not posting much, so I'm putting you on the spot to see what you have to say today. There should be more than enough to work with at this point.

[mith]

I am pretty sure that what you got on me was due to my role rather than yours.

So,

Unvote, Vote: Peachy

. Though, obviously, we should give her a chance to defend herself.

[mith]

Oh, there are probably several... Crowley, for one, but he's dead already. That said, I can guess from the questions I was asked yesterday what Pooky got about me, and expect that he is at least mostly useful.

(In other words, I'm confident he does get accurate results, from a certain point of view, and that does at least put Peachy to the top of my list, pending more information.)

[mith]

Bah, where'd my wireless connection go?

I'll be back to normal posting tomorrow (bank holiday today). Not much to say at this point anyway, until Pooky or Peachy says something more.

[mith]

Lemming replaces Korais.

~confused~ Didn't korais post a page or two ago saying he was back? And, in fact, vote?

[mith]

That's 9, I believe. If you have anything more substantial to say, Peachy, you'd better say it.

[mith]

roland, I am becoming very tempted to Vig kill you. My attention has shifted to Peachy because of Pooky's result, but that doesn't mean my last post about you has vanished. Once again, rather than making any attempt at posting actual reasoning, you ignore the ongoing Peachy discussion and vote for someone completely out of nowhere. You have forgotten the face of your father.

I see no reason to change my vote. I am not convinced by Peachy's "claim". Unless Pooky believes we shouldn't, I say we go ahead and lynch her. But I would like to hear something out of Pooky first, if only to make sure he's paying attention and is going to get a choice in tonight.

[mith]

Come on guys. I'm not going to demand you vote for Peachy and get this day over with, but at least post *something*.

roland, go read the book (that's one book, not a series), it's good. That said, I still don't understand people signing up for themes that they don't know anything about and don't do anything to change that. It's not like this is a Wheel of Time game.

[mith]

At least if we get a deadline, we've already got enough for a lynch.

Come on people. I'm getting bored.

[mith]

~gasp~

We actually beat the deadline??

[mith]

To be helpful while we wait, I compiled a list of last post dates for the non-voters. User - Last post in this game (Last post on site).

JDTAY - March 5 (March 13)
Electra - April 6
Pitbull (replaces PBuG) - April 8, one post
SinisterOverlord - April 6 (April 14)
DoomCow - April 28
SubtleTactix - May 2
The Machine 86 (replaces KingEnigma) - May 5 (May 19)
Day 3 starts - May 22
Genocide Heart - May 24
Iammars (replaces lazarusmoth) - April 15 (June 7)

[mith]

I'm fine with roland, as should be obvious. I'll wait for Pooky to stop sucking and tell us what he found.

[mith]

I stand by what I said earlier: my role should be very clear to anyone who has read the book (though it might require some care to catch it).

I didn't kill last night; I almost targetted roland as I mentioned, but I guess it's a good thing I didn't, with Pooky checking him. I'll have to catch up before posting any more.

[mith]

Mr. Flay: I'm not sure I can answer that. I'll check with the mods.

I'm still shocked that so many people are missing my role, though.

Vote: korais

. With roland off limits for now (note of course that he could still be Metatron or something along those lines), I'll go back to my original day 1 suspicion. I'm not at all surprised Pooky and myself are still alive; Pooky might have doc protection, and I'm not really a threat; there's still multiple groups, and so they have to worry about taking out each other more than a vig with no info.

[mith]

Later. Meds starting to kick in. It was on day one though, just display all of my posts from then.

[mith]

That was mostly it. And admitting it was crap logic but keeping the vote. And the fact that it was a third vote. And hunch.

[mith]

I am almost certain you are still missing my role, Mr. Flay. I have asked DS whether I can clear a couple things up.

[mith]

Heh... read that bit again, Pooky. Keep in mind the result you got on me.

Still waiting on the mods about the question and whether I can clarify something.

[mith]

Gah. Another thing to ask the mod. I'll get this cleared up somehow... it's so obvious to *me*, but it happens to be one of my favorite characters anyway.

[mith]

Ok, clarification number 1: My role is not based on what the character does in the book, but on the name of the character.

Awaiting response on other question.

[mith]

Happy with my vote, and still waiting on the mods. I'll post something longer when I'm feeling better, whether I hear from them or not.

[mith]

19? ~snerk~

Ok, I can not answer whether I can talk to anyone at night. I can, however, do this:

Almost every character on the cast list in Good Omens will be included in the game. Only two will be omitted.

Of course, that doesn't mean only characters on the cast list will be included.

[mith]

If we were not who everyone thinks we are

I think I've gotten lost, with all the replacements. Definitely need to reread after jury duty tomorrow.

[mith]

Unvote: korais, Vote: GH

Day's dragging as usual, and it doesn't look like anyone is interested in voting korais.

[mith]

Mr. Flay, I wasn't planning on killing unless I have a good reason to, or we are nearing an endgame.

[mith]

Mods, could you make sure the list of players in the first post is up to date? Wasn't FD replaced, at least?

Vote: korais

again, though I'd be happy with a Blackberry vote as well. Pooky's got our backs though.

[mith]

I didn't kill, no.

[mith]

This is fairly low on my priority list right now, so I haven't had a chance to re-read or anything, but I thought I'd check in. I remain happy with my vote for korais.

[mith]

Bah, I keep forgetting I'm still alive in this game.

FOS: Annoyingpest

. I'll be the first to admit that I have been pretty rubish in this game so far (both due to lack of participation and not being used to the style of well over half the players).

Mr. Flay: I believe I have dropped enough hints for a careful reader to figure out my role. That you continue to cling to your "best theory" in spite of the evidence is extremely peculiar.

[mith]

Well, consider it from my perspective. My first choice for a role that kills with fish (Adam) is not possible now, for you. My second choice doesn't seem to meet with your approval, though of course you can't *tell* me when/if I get it right. No other characters fit both criteria (scummy-seeming and supernatural) in my worldview, so what am I left with?

It doesn't really have anything to do with meeting with my approval. It just doesn't fit with what's been posted, at all. I strongly suggest everyone read posts 454, 459, and 801 again.

and you keep claiming how your 'game is off', which is why you're not doing all that well at catching scum either during the day or at night

a. I don't "keep claiming" my game is off. I've said something along those lines twice, and the second was in response to AP's misguided statement.
b. I haven't caught any scum at night because *I'm not killing at night*. If the town thinks I should be killing, by all means, say so. I'd prefer to wait until we're closer to an endgame, myself.
c. I'm not sure what your point in mentioning this is anyway. I'd be trying to catch other scum even if I was scum myself. That I have been wrong about some of the newer players is pretty irrelevant. I suppose you could make the argument that since I was against voting for Gaspode early on I might be a Horseman, but I don't think you actually believe that. I certainly would've cast more doubt on Pooky's Peachy result if I were in that group.

Plus, if you're a pro-town vigilante, why are you still alive?? For that matter, why is Pooky still alive? It's not like the scum couldn't overwhelm/outfox a protective role *once* in a while... they've certainly got a good enough shooting average with other players. You two are our only outed 'power' roles, and yet you're both still breathing...

There are plenty of reasons why scum might choose to not try to kill us. Pooky, if there's a protective role out there, is almost certainly protected; overwhelming would take correctly guessing that someone else would try to kill him too. I remain good lynchbait for later on, at least until someone figures out my role. They could be gunning for each other (roland had plenty of suspicion put on him, for example). Going after masons (Locus) seems reasonable as well; if I were scum, I'd much rather get to the end of the game against a miller-vig than a group of masons.

[mith]

So many distractions...

I think it might be a good idea for me to use a kill tonight. I suggest to get things going and to hopefully pin down some people on suspicions for later use, everyone list the three most suspicious players to them, preferably with a bit of reasoning. Hopefully will come out with clear lynching and vigging candidates.

1. korais - This is mostly just from the first couple days. As is my standard practice, I harrassed the first person who looked somewhat scummy, and his reaction didn't sit well with me.
2. SubtleTactix - We nailed GH for, in part, going after the claimed masons. ST was actually the first one to do this, right after they first claimed. I'd forgotten all about it until I caught it skimming just now.
3. olio - Volunteering for the vig-kill is still sticking in my mind. It could've been a genuine "I'm useless, might as well kill me", but I still think he was bluffing; even with the vig discussion, it was an odd time to come out with a claim. That, and the "2 days??" vote when I was being bandwagoned.

Hopefully I can finished reading through this weekend.

[mith]

...you don't play enough games, then.

[mith]

I suppose I will be killing olio then. That seems to be the consensus of those actually talking.

[mith]

Bah. 'bout time someone killed me.

[mith]

Do I at least get points for confusing everyone for so long?

[mith]

Oh, and for the record (for those of you that still remember this far back), I really was at a conference when Pooky outed me. I wasn't stalling for time, I had come up with my "claim" pretty much from the beginning. I had a lot of fun with that, I'm still surprised I got away with it for so long.