Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[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.

[Fuldu]

Mith, I come from an entirely different "school" of play. I do interact. I don't like long posts.

But this tendency toward short posts has occurred

while

you've been playing here. In many of your earlier games on MS you posted long, drawn-out posts analysing voting patterns of previous days to try to pin down where the scum were likely to be hiding. They weren't always correct, but they were intelligent and well-intentioned even in those instances when they were wrong (or you were scum and they weren't well-intentioned, but they appeared so). The new PeaceBringer, who posts little of note and then comes up with a vote seemingly out of nowhere, is probably putting the same amount of thought and analysis into his votes as the old one was, but it's far less convincing to those of us who don't get to see your argument. In this particular case, the rattling on about how you'd prefer not to see careful analysis in posts seems scummy.

vote: PeaceBringer

[Fuldu]

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.

I read that as his assuming that if you both live to tonight, you'll likely target him, so it's in his best interest to eliminate you. It's not an argument that you're scum, exactly, but preservation of self is usually a better plan than preservation of unknown other.

[Coron]

I don't know if I want to vote lc or pb at this point both look scummy to me.

[PeaceBringer]

Mith, I come from an entirely different "school" of play. I do interact. I don't like long posts.

But this tendency toward short posts has occurred

while

you've been playing here. In many of your earlier games on MS you posted long, drawn-out posts analysing voting patterns of previous days to try to pin down where the scum were likely to be hiding. They weren't always correct, but they were intelligent and well-intentioned even in those instances when they were wrong (or you were scum and they weren't well-intentioned, but they appeared so). The new PeaceBringer, who posts little of note and then comes up with a vote seemingly out of nowhere, is probably putting the same amount of thought and analysis into his votes as the old one was, but it's far less convincing to those of us who don't get to see your argument. In this particular case, the rattling on about how you'd prefer not to see careful analysis in posts seems scummy.

vote: PeaceBringer

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. 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. 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. 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. And forgive me, if he is protown and wants me out of a game and can kill, nothing I can do about that. So

FOS to FUldu

for misrepresentation of my play.

[olio]

Still waiting... And mith, feel free to chime in with suggestions too. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my vote on Locus.

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

Well, you two seemed to have problems with me offering myself as a vig target.

OK, thoughts - in terms of today's activities, I'd agree with the observations so far that rolandofthewhite and Locus were hasty in compounding the votes once it was established there

was

a need for discussion, and I'm suspicious of you for your "vig me!" gambit. However, we still have the likely suspects from yesterday - Gaspode and, from earlier in the day, korais666 (I'm not mentioning Coron as I'm comfortable with his claim, for now) - what have either of them done to justify our moving on from them? Why are they so quiet today?

So do you suggest the scum vig should kill is in group of roland, Locus, me, Gaspode and korais666?

mod

, can we have a votecount?

[Seol]

Still waiting... And mith, feel free to chime in with suggestions too. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my vote on Locus.

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

Well, you two seemed to have problems with me offering myself as a vig target.

There's too many people just not saying

anything

at the moment. It's not even a case of lurkers evading discussion - the vast majority of the game just isn't here. We're heading for an abandoned game if we're not careful - trouble is, the lack of participation is killing my enthusiasm for the game, which in turn means I'm less likely to post. WHERE IS EVERYONE? GODDAMMIT!

OK, thoughts - in terms of today's activities, I'd agree with the observations so far that rolandofthewhite and Locus were hasty in compounding the votes once it was established there

was

a need for discussion, and I'm suspicious of you for your "vig me!" gambit. However, we still have the likely suspects from yesterday - Gaspode and, from earlier in the day, korais666 (I'm not mentioning Coron as I'm comfortable with his claim, for now) - what have either of them done to justify our moving on from them? Why are they so quiet today?

So do you suggest the scum vig should kill is in group of roland, Locus, me, Gaspode and korais666?

That's the way it looks to me at the moment. I would however comment I don't think we should be thinking about the vig target as a separate concept from the lynch target, they should both be based on suspicion, and as such the lynch target should be decided later into the day, when we have more to go on. For now, I'd be happy with a tentative target of any of those, though.

[Desperate Heart]

I'm (Sort of) here. I'm busy wasting my childhood with videogames, though. That stuff's addictng!

Scummiest person at this point, I think, is Locus for the rushing a vote based on incomplete cop info when the cop himself wanted to continue the discussion thing. Worse than anything we concluded about Gaspode yesterday, and based on far less speculation since the move was just plain bad.

Vote: Locus Cosecant.

Also, PB, how is it that although you believe Mith is lying you still believe he has a vig ability? Right now Mith is in a position where (possibly excepting a really ambigous or out of place kill method) if he's scum he's dead. As such, claiming an ability that will quite possibly eliminate another scum when it's tested would not seem to be a very good move.

[PeaceBringer]

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. 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.

[Locus Cosecant]

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

[Seol]

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

You can

prove

your innocence?

[Locus Cosecant]

Mod, could I have a votecount please?

[SubtleTactix]

I find Locus a better lynch target at the moment than mith, since mith has at least a chance of verifying his claim tonight by attempting a kill. So my instinct is to lynch Locus today, and see what happens tonight. I only count five votes on him at the moment, so I feel comfortable adding one more. It won't prevent him from saying what he has to say...

Vote: Locus

.

However, it does seem a little odd to me that we had two extra kills on night one and a vigilante that

didn't

kill. I know, I know... 32 people alive night 1, we could have 10 players with killing abilities for all that we know. But if it's not totally obvious that a new type of kill occurred tomorrow, I'll definitely find mith my first choice for a lynch.

I don't really have much to say about PB at this point. I see criticism of short posts. That doesn't scream scummy to me. For example, in a big game like this, I lurk way too much in the beginning. That's bad play on my part, not scummy behavior. I view PB's post style in a similar way. PB could certainly turn out to be scum, but I think we've got better choices right now.

[mith]

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

[Desperate Heart]

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. 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.

He claims he is innocent. You voted for him.

This strongly implies that you believe that claim is false and it is thus odd, although not necessarily scummy, that you believe that the accompanying claim that he can kill is true.

Unless you're considering his kill to be the kill of the scum group you believe he's in, which would also make sense. This is why I'm not that suspicious about the whole thing.

[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.

[PeaceBringer]

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. 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.

He claims he is innocent. You voted for him.

This strongly implies that you believe that claim is false and it is thus odd, although not necessarily scummy, that you believe that the accompanying claim that he can kill is true.

Unless you're considering his kill to be the kill of the scum group you believe he's in, which would also make sense. This is why I'm not that suspicious about the whole thing.

I voted for him related to his stated intent to remove me from the game. If he can kill and wants me out of the game, I don't want him in the game regardless of claim or defense. This is specifically what I stated. So a

big FOS

to you for more spin.

[PeaceBringer]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

excuse me, you attacked my play this game, pure and simple. You made a concerted effort to throw stuff at me.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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. Everything you have said has not had an ounce of anything credible. Odds are I am a dead man anyway now. [/quote]

[Desperate Heart]

Wait, let me get this straight...

You're voting for mith even though you believe he's town, just because you don't want to die.

FOS: PeaceBringer

Clarify this immediately. I hope I'm just reading you wrong.

[PeaceBringer]

Wait, let me get this straight...

You're voting for mith even though you believe he's town, just because you don't want to die.

FOS: PeaceBringer

Clarify this immediately. I hope I'm just reading you wrong.

I don't know if he is town or not. He wants me out of the game. This is not good.
Just having that out there has sealed my fate anyway.

[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.

[olio]

Good Grud... It's been two weeks since last vote count.

mods

, please.

[Dragon Slayer]

Vote Count

7 Mith (Electra, Iammars, Locus Cosecant, Peachy, PeaceBringer, rolandofthewhite, SinisterOverlord)
6 Locus Cosecant (Coron, Genocide Heart, Olio, PookyTheMagicalBear, SubtleTactix, Thoth)
2 Peacebringer (Fuldu, Mith)
1 Gaspode (Seol)

13 to lynch

.

[Aelyn]

Sorry I've been posting so little; without claims and counter-claims, this game has kinda lost interest for me.

I'm still keeping up, just, just not posting too much.

Vote Locus Cosecant.

I'm more suspicious of him than Mith, and I feel day needs to end. The game's far too slow right now.

[Fuldu]

There are probably others who require prods, but Electra's mini has been abandoned after three weeks of inactivity on her part. Can we start looking into a replacement?