Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[Electra]

Hello everyone!

Hmm.

Hm. Thought. It is possible, however, that any number of groups could be scum. The forces of Hell being scum is probable, but by no means certain. The horsemen being scum is even more probable - especially in light of the starvation death.

Given the text at the beginning, I'd say the measure of whether a faction is pro-'town' or anti-'town' can be gagued by simply asking: Do they want to bring about the end of the world? Scum do and town don't, I think.

I haven't read the books in a few years. But, I'm thinking we have multiple scum factions, maybe even three. In order of probability: Apocalyptic Horsepersons (Death, War, Famine, Pollution), Forces of Hell, (Satan, Beelzebub, Hastur, Ligur), Forces of Heaven (God, Metatron). I left Aziraphale and Crowley off as, if I recall correctly, they don't want the end of the world.

The Witchfinders make me nervous, given that there's three of them and one in charge, which I believe is the most common setup for a scum group. And, the burning death fits. But, vigilante-group fits as well, so I'm not thinking they're likely scum.

Them. Given that it wouldn't be the first time the good protagonists have been evil in a game of mafia, I'm not discounting the possibility of them being scum. But, for now I'll stick with the normal assumption - that they're pro-town. Especially given their active role in the prevention of the end of the world.

Phew. Now to actually find the book again, to make sure I didn't just spit out a load of garbage.

Since I have not yet read the book, I will quote this person and say that I agree with his deductions the most. Unfortunately this discussion is going over my head, so I will try read at least some of it tonight.

[Electra]

Oh yes, finally, a truly suspicious post in the middle of all the speculation of things I know nothing about.

vote: Gaspode

because that's exactly the kind of nothing mafia would say.

[Electra]

Roland walks over to the news trailer and bangs on it a couple of times. A few minutes later, Nondescript Reporter stumbles out, buttoning up his shirt and frantically trying to straighten his hair.

=DDD The first time I read that, I read it as Nondescript Report stumbling out of roland's trailer and buttoning up his shirt.

[Electra]

Aelyn's post is pretty curious to me. Voting entirely based on what mith said leaves him open to shifting the blame.

Gaspode hasn't really done anything nonsuspicious yet, but I will

unvote

because I don't feel comfortable pursuing a lynch on him anymore.

What's up with that vote, Coron?

[Electra]

Aelyn's post is pretty curious to me. Voting entirely based on what mith said leaves him open to shifting the blame.

Gaspode hasn't really done anything nonsuspicious yet, but I will

unvote

because I don't feel comfortable pursuing a lynch on him anymore.

Now that's interesting. You found him suspicious enough to vote for once, he "hasn't really done anything nonsuspicious yet", but you're not comfortable pursuing a lynch? What exactly do you want, then?

Or were you just trying to put a "fake", throw-us-off-the-scent scum buddy vote on Gaspode for later reference, and now you're concerned he might actually be getting close to a lynch (he still needs approximately infinity votes, though)?

FOS: Electra

Hey, I like this game, the scum are easy to spot!

Er, just history. Gaspode hasn't done anything nonsuspicious, but he hasn't done anything more suspicious either. I've had a history of going after someone without considering their posts from a town perspective after their initial scummy posts.

And like you said, he's not anywhere near a lynch yet, and it's not like there's a consensus that he's the one to lynch. O.o So how does unvoting make me Mafia?

Aelyn - But your summary was "Mith reasoning v. strong. yup."

[Electra]

[What, so you only keep your votes on scum who are kind enough to compound their errors? That's very forgiving of you!

I would keep my vote on Gaspode if he had actually made an error and not just made a few posts that seemed Mafia-flavoured.

But you said he hasn't done anything nonsuspicious - in fact, all he's done is clarify that his position is one of great reluctence to vote. What has he said that makes you think he isn't scummy?

I don't think he's not scum. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt since he could be making those posts if he were town and for a while, I didn't give people the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't "make you Mafia", but taking a vote off whilst not finding him any less suspicious makes me wonder:
a) How suspicious did you find him in the first place?
b) Might you have had a reason

other than suspicion

to place a vote on him?

I'm just saying that at the moment your actions don't make much sense. Whilst I'm not putting it forward seriously, the prospect of it being a seperator vote is both plausible and consistent with your actions - but it was more of a poke than an indictment, I'll freely admit it's fairly flimsy.

I found him suspicious enough to vote him. I don't know what the other people feel exactly about him, but the way that he posted just seemed very reluctant to commit to anything and Mafia-like. But it's not like there was anything concrete against him, just a feeling. After a few more of his posts, I felt that it was possible that he was just a townie speaking in that manner, and since my vote wasn't doing anything anyway, I removed it. Make sense?

From "the Mafia are so easy to spot" to "fairly flimsy"?

[Electra]

vote: mith

[Electra]

Ahh sorry. Page 18 didn't load for me until I posted. >__> I won't bother removing the vote since we're still pretty far from a lynch anyway.