Mini 892 - Mayor Mafia (GAME OVER)

[Socrates]

Re: Hoopla's theory: I don't really see much of an issue with it. My only trepidation with it is that we are putting the decision in the hands of someone a majority of us would agree is very likely scum. That either means we are putting the decision to either scum or a player who isn't playing very well. I don't know.

One other problem: We lose all of those juicy connections we could go back and look at later in the game if we don't elect the old fashioned way. Right now we essentially have two lanes of people forming connections with each other (votes to lynch and votes to become mayor).

We don't lose that many connections - the only one we're eliminating is the mayor lane on D1. Regardless, I think quite a few players may find it difficult spotting scum influence on mayor wagons. It is many times more fraught with WIFOM and guess games (especially on D1), as there is less importance on the outcome of the wagon than a regular lynching wagon. The stances scum could take to the mayor wagons seem highly variable. I don't even know how I'd pick off scum from mayor wagons, as it's the opposite of a normal wagon which is where everyone has honed their radars.

But it is a double-edged sword - becoming mayor will come with heavy scrutiny. I can imagine some scum players may feel the extra power of a vote might not be worth the attention, especially early in the game.

Eh, I actually had a very clear idea of how I was going to go about looking for scum based on how the Mayoral election went down going into today. I don't want to go into what those tells are yet mind you, but I do have them. But yea, there is no prior experience to fall back on when it comes to dealing with this, and I don't have any data or anything to actually back up my thinking.

Have there been any kingmaker games in mafia scum's history that involved directly electing the king? I wouldn't know where to look.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, I am just trying to judge your plan correctly.

[MonkeyMan576]

There's a lot of WIFOM there, isn't it? I mean, if the mayor was scum, how do you determine if they would be more likely to choose a scum mayor or a town mayor? Since the town would less likely to trust someone chosen by scum, it might be a valid gambit to choose a townie to make them suspicious.

Which is basically the point that Hoopla was trying to make I think.

I think at this point it's best to elect the person with the most support to the position, rather than succumb to the WIFOM of a mayor lynch gambit so early.

My opinion that recommending yourself for mayor is suspicious is just my personal opinion. I would be willing to consider a campaigning player if there is ample support from other players. My point is that campaigning for mayor before you are nominated by someone else isn't a tell per se, but to me it seems self serving. Scum could do it and town could do it, but it would be more dangerous in the hands of scum. I would be more likely to trust someone that was nominated by someone else. It's like if someone is being attacks and campaigns for their own pro-towniness, it is less effective if they are the only one's doing the defending, rather than if there are other players making a valid defence of a player being attacked.

[SaintKerrigan]

Ummmm, how are townies supposed to actively try and become mayor without nominating themselves? Also, you haven't explained why it is Bad for a player to sell themselves anyway.

You are doing what monkey and cathart were doing. Throwing a blanket suspicion on people for doing an action with no real justification for why it is bad.

I stated earlier that it was a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe I got a little carried away with the theme "those that want power should not have it." You're right, though, that people that want to become mayor will likely nominate themselves. That was bad judgment on my part.

Hoopla's idea seems interesting, but ultimately I think it's best that we should first determine our best potential lynch candidates, and then generate mayor nominees from the people that we consider town.

@ MIC: Okay, consider argument dropped. Right now, I'm a little wary of Monkey. He just seemed to jump straight on to the Post 66 argument, blindly agreeing with what you said.

I haven't heard much out of DDD, and of the three game-official posts he's made, the first feels like a joke post (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that), the second is an unexplained nomination for Socrates and an RVS vote on me (if that actually was randomly-induced), and then in the third post he simply says he shows support for Hoopla's idea. It's setting off my scumdar a bit, but I don't feel he's vote-worthy yet. I would appreciate it if he explained his Socrates nomination, though.

[MonkeyMan576]

@ MIC: Okay, consider argument dropped. Right now, I'm a little wary of Monkey. He just seemed to jump straight on to the Post 66 argument, blindly agreeing with what you said.

I didn't blindly agree. I actually thought about it.

[Socrates]

My opinion that recommending yourself for mayor is suspicious is just my personal opinion. I would be willing to consider a campaigning player if there is ample support from other players. My point is that campaigning for mayor before you are nominated by someone else isn't a tell per se, but to me it seems self serving. Scum could do it and town could do it, but it would be more dangerous in the hands of scum. I would be more likely to trust someone that was nominated by someone else. It's like if someone is being attacks and campaigns for their own pro-towniness, it is less effective if they are the only one's doing the defending, rather than if there are other players making a valid defence of a player being attacked.

I had lots of responses to this at once.

My first is: none of this actually argues why scum would be more inclined to do this action, or why townies shouldn't do it.

My second is: This attitude is preying on (or falling prey to) two things 1) a central dislike/distrust of people who want to lead: "This guy is asking for my trust, he MUST have ulterior motives." and 2) the impulse to think of the guy highlighting his qualifications as arrogant. This is why nobody trusts politicians even though a signifigant portion of them aren't corrupt

. It is comforting to look at somebody acting all humble and modest and think "that guy isn't trying to mislead me, I should trust him. and he isn't an arrogant jerk who only talks about how awsome he is." Even though this ignores that modesty isn't proof of qualification for a position, and modesty is easy to fake.

My third is: that point about a defense coming from someone other than the accused is really bad. You should judge the logic and the facts, not where it is coming from to determine if the points are valid.

My fourth is: if you are genuine, scum would have such an easy time manipulating you it isn't even funny.

I guess what I am saying is that your argument is a complicated form of AtE and you are being too irrational Monkey.

[charter]

unsupport, support Socrates

Let's elect Socrates and lynch Monkey.

[MonkeyMan576]

My opinion that recommending yourself for mayor is suspicious is just my personal opinion. I would be willing to consider a campaigning player if there is ample support from other players. My point is that campaigning for mayor before you are nominated by someone else isn't a tell per se, but to me it seems self serving. Scum could do it and town could do it, but it would be more dangerous in the hands of scum. I would be more likely to trust someone that was nominated by someone else. It's like if someone is being attacks and campaigns for their own pro-towniness, it is less effective if they are the only one's doing the defending, rather than if there are other players making a valid defence of a player being attacked.

I had lots of responses to this at once.

My first is: none of this actually argues why scum would be more inclined to do this action, or why townies shouldn't do it.

It actually does. You just aren't taking the time to look at my argument.

My second is: This attitude is preying on (or falling prey to) two things 1) a central dislike/distrust of people who want to lead: "This guy is asking for my trust, he MUST have ulterior motives." and 2) the impulse to think of the guy highlighting his qualifications as arrogant. This is why nobody trusts politicians even though a signifigant portion of them aren't corrupt

. It is comforting to look at somebody acting all humble and modest and think "that guy isn't trying to mislead me, I should trust him. and he isn't an arrogant jerk who only talks about how awsome he is." Even though this ignores that modesty isn't proof of qualification for a position, and modesty is easy to fake.

Mafia isn't a game where you are supposed to trust everone. Trust is earned through your actions, it's not pro-town behavior to trust everyone at the beginning of the game.

My third is: that point about a defense coming from someone other than the accused is really bad. You should judge the logic and the facts, not where it is coming from to determine if the points are valid.

Looking at statements alone and not in game relationships is pretty dumb.

My fourth is: if you are genuine, scum would have such an easy time manipulating you it isn't even funny.

I don't see how.

I guess what I am saying is that your argument is a complicated form of AtE and you are being too irrational Monkey.

[/Quote]

It's not AtE at all. It's actually logical.

[xRECKONERx]

Just realized charter's avatar is still "Feed the Animals". Awesome.

[MichelSableheart]

Fourth support count of day 1:

charter (0)

kyle99 (1)

Hoopla

Moai Interceptor Cannons (1)

MonkeyMan576

Debonair Danny DiPietro (0)

SerialClergyman (0)

* Hoopla (3)

Col.Cathart,SerialClergyman, kyle99

Socrates (3)

Socrates, Debonair Danny DiPietro, charter

MonkeyMan576 (0)

xRECKONERx (0)

nhammen (2)

nhammen, Moai Interceptor Cannons

Col.Cathart (0)

SaintKerrigan (0)

Not supporting anyone (2)

SaintKerrigan, xRECKONERx

With 12 players alive, it takes 7 votes to elect someone as mayor.

an * marks who would become mayor if the day ended right now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fourth vote count of day 1:

charter (0)

kyle99 (0)

Moai Interceptor Cannons (0)

Debonair Danny DiPietro (0)

SerialClergyman (0)

Hoopla (0)

Socrates (0)

MonkeyMan576 (5)

charter, Socrates, xRECKONERx, SerialClergyman, Hoopla

xRECKONERx (1)

Col.Cathart

nhammen (0)

Col.Cathart (0)

SaintKerrigan (3)

Debonair Danny DiPietro, Moai Interceptor Cannons, MonkeyMan576

Not voting anyone (3)

kyle99, nhammen, SaintKerrigan

With 13 votes available, it takes 7 votes to lynch someone. However, noone can be lynched before a mayor is elected.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, how do you feel about Monkey, the people on his wagon, and MIC, who jumped off the wagon?

I think many uncomplimentary things about Monkey frankly from my experience with him I don't know if he's acting scummy now or if his view of the game is really so pathetically simple. The people on his wagon excluding Rec are all people I've played with and I trust their ability if not their intent and I have to assume they've considered their meta of Monkey and still think he's suspicious. MIC's behavior on this likely rules out scum-MIC, town-Monkey but everything else is still in play.

[charter]

DDD, why are you voting for Kerrigan?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, why are you voting for Kerrigan?

Didn't like him following SC's silly little mayoral candidate test, don't like him not wanting to be mayor, don't like his suspicions of me.

[charter]

What do you think of Reckoner? Town/scum?

[xRECKONERx]

I'm very intrigued by the above question.

And, I think I can agree with Hoopla's compromise: let's figure out a lynchee, THEN figure out mayor.

Socrates' 154 is actually pretty awful. For reference, see MM's rebuttal. Is it enough to make me hop off the Monkey wagon? Hmm...

Unvote, Vote: Socrates

Yeah. Let's switch it up a little. P.S. (Some of this has to do with meta. It seems every time I play with MM or have read his play, he gets run up to a lynch pretty early on for rather bullshit reasons.)

[charter]

What about 154 is awful? Socrates's points were pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Monkey's rebuttals have all be terrible, what parts of them are you agreeing with exactly?

That post there is the first time you've said anything this game, which is why I was asking DDD what he thinks about you, since you are lacking protowness to the extreme.

[xRECKONERx]

I had lots of responses to this at once.

My first is: none of this actually argues why scum would be more inclined to do this action, or why townies shouldn't do it.

My second is: This attitude is preying on (or falling prey to) two things 1) a central dislike/distrust of people who want to lead: "This guy is asking for my trust, he MUST have ulterior motives." and 2) the impulse to think of the guy highlighting his qualifications as arrogant. This is why nobody trusts politicians even though a signifigant portion of them aren't corrupt

. It is comforting to look at somebody acting all humble and modest and think "that guy isn't trying to mislead me, I should trust him. and he isn't an arrogant jerk who only talks about how awsome he is." Even though this ignores that modesty isn't proof of qualification for a position, and modesty is easy to fake.

My third is: that point about a defense coming from someone other than the accused is really bad. You should judge the logic and the facts, not where it is coming from to determine if the points are valid.

My fourth is: if you are genuine, scum would have such an easy time manipulating you it isn't even funny.

I guess what I am saying is that your argument is a complicated form of AtE and you are being too irrational Monkey.

1) I agree with his first point.

2) The whole aside about the politician in the second post really seemed like fluff to me.

3) Monkey is right about this: not judging it at least partially based on player relationships in-game is just plain dumb.

4) Okay, but what about it? Irrelevant, really. I'm an easy mislynch target too in many of my games, doesn't make me scum.

5) I don't think AtE is necessarily a scumtell.

[MonkeyMan576]

DDD, how do you feel about Monkey, the people on his wagon, and MIC, who jumped off the wagon?

I think many uncomplimentary things about Monkey frankly from my experience with him I don't know if he's acting scummy now or if his view of the game is really so pathetically simple. The people on his wagon excluding Rec are all people I've played with and I trust their ability if not their intent and I have to assume they've considered their meta of Monkey and still think he's suspicious. MIC's behavior on this likely rules out scum-MIC, town-Monkey but everything else is still in play.

I don't know what's simple about my game philosophy, and this seems like a rather poor reason to vote for someone.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, how do you feel about Monkey, the people on his wagon, and MIC, who jumped off the wagon?

I think many uncomplimentary things about Monkey frankly from my experience with him I don't know if he's acting scummy now or if his view of the game is really so pathetically simple. The people on his wagon excluding Rec are all people I've played with and I trust their ability if not their intent and I have to assume they've considered their meta of Monkey and still think he's suspicious. MIC's behavior on this likely rules out scum-MIC, town-Monkey but everything else is still in play.

I don't know what's simple about my game philosophy, and this seems like a rather poor reason to vote for someone.

Good thing I didn't vote for you then, huh, clownshoes?

Oh and charter, Reckoner has in fact been pretty damn useless the entire game, only question comes from the aggresiveness of lobbying to be mayor but I don't know him well enough to know if that's anything unusual for him. His latest vote sucks as well. Lots not to like.

[MonkeyMan576]

DDD, how do you feel about Monkey, the people on his wagon, and MIC, who jumped off the wagon?

I think many uncomplimentary things about Monkey frankly from my experience with him I don't know if he's acting scummy now or if his view of the game is really so pathetically simple. The people on his wagon excluding Rec are all people I've played with and I trust their ability if not their intent and I have to assume they've considered their meta of Monkey and still think he's suspicious. MIC's behavior on this likely rules out scum-MIC, town-Monkey but everything else is still in play.

I don't know what's simple about my game philosophy, and this seems like a rather poor reason to vote for someone.

Good thing I didn't vote for you then, huh, clownshoes?

Oh and charter, Reckoner has in fact been pretty damn useless the entire game, only question comes from the aggresiveness of lobbying to be mayor but I don't know him well enough to know if that's anything unusual for him. His latest vote sucks as well. Lots not to like.

My point wasn't that you voted for me, it was that you sounded like you're looking for an excuse too.

[xRECKONERx]

@DDD:

I'm an awful player. You'll eventually learn this about me. *points to 4-10 win/lose record*

[nhammen]

Wouldn't nominate =/= don't want to be. There's a difference. It sounded like you were scared of nominating yourself because you thought that, as you said yourself, 'people that nominate themselves shouldn't get the role'. Your answers to the questionnaire were an act of modesty, same as Serial's, Reckoner's, Nhammen's -- do we see a trend here? No one is arrogant enough to claim that they meet all the requirements to be a perfect mayor. I realise you can keep repeating that you answered the questionnaire because you 'thought it was a good idea', but do you see anyone else answering it and not wanting to me mayor? Serial himself is in denial about it, but that's because he believes there are better options. Unlike you: 'not yet sure who to nominate either'. If your post was actually a bid for mayor, it would've been fine. But wanting to be considered for mayor + not saying it outright because you felt that 'people that nominate themselves shouldn't get the role' = dishonesty. Now if you actually didn't want to be mayor in the first place, then I am mistaken (and I apologise), but that was the impression I got from your post 66, and even if I was right you can keep claiming I was wrong anyway. This line of argument isn't going to go anywhere, so let me ask you something else. Why did you feel that 'people that nominate themselves shouldn't get the role'? Also, who are you suspicious of?

@Charter, the answer to why I think Kerrigan is scummy is somewhere above. In short, what Monkey and Cathart did + actually wanting to be considered for mayor. Maybe I should get your opinion - does post 66 give you the impression that Kerrigan was being dishonest about wanting to be mayor? Mind you it's not as strong a suspicion that I'm willing to burn through him with a magnifying glass for it - after all it's still early game. Conversely, I don't get why you saw Monkey's blanket statement as a tell that he couldn't be anything but scum either. Why did you only give Cathart a FoS even before he retracted anything, whilst you had Monkey pegged as '100% scum'?

I'm not a fan of Hoopla's idea at all TBH. Town are uninformed and scum can WIFOM. All very pointless. And since it doesn't look like anyone else wants Reckoner to be mayor, I'll

Unsupport, Support: nhammen

.

Your case on Kerrigan is almost nonexistent. I do not get anything about Kerrigan wanting to be mayor. In fact, I get the opposite. Thank you for supporting me though.

I can understand why townies feel uneasy about having people supporting themselves as mayor. It makes sense. But then Socrates mentioned that townies should support themselves, and gave very good arguments for it. People having the old opinion are not scummy for having this opinion. Reactions for being called out on being scummy for this, are, on the other hand, useful. I have a few suspicions right now. I guess I need to go do some meta research to see whether these suspicions are valid. Just to let everyone know, I disagree with the case on Kerrigan. I agree with the case on Monkey, with one caveat: he played scummy in Day Night. I plan on checking his activity in Day Night, and comparing to this. If the comparison is unsatisfactory, I will be willing to vote him.

(Some of this has to do with meta. It seems every time I play with MM or have read his play, he gets run up to a lynch pretty early on for rather bullshit reasons.)

Exactly why I am going to compare.

[nhammen]

My meta read on Monkey was inconclusive. Monkey, do you have any games in which you were scum you could link me to?

Also, during my reread I noticed some things:

MIC, don't do it.

What did this mean? Also, why have most of your posts been fluff?

All people who vote others without posting their reasons are scum.

See what I did there? I laid down an unfounded accusation with no justification that lets me accuse others of being scum for no good reason.

Funny story: I've caught scum with that mentality before.

MORE PEOPLE SUPPORT SERIAL! HE DOES NOT RAPE BABIES (I hope).

What is with you and serial? Why are you so sure he's a good choice?

MIC, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why did you switch your support from Reck to me? There were other options available. What about me makes me stand out? Why were you supporting Reck in the first place?

That is all for now. Thank you for taking my questions.

[Socrates]

I just want to ram my head through my monitor right now.

It actually does. You just aren't taking the time to look at my argument.

No, monkey I read your argument completely. It just has no substance to back up what you are saying. I am not going to go line by line in that paragraph and point out how they don't support your case.

Mafia isn't a game where you are supposed to trust everone. Trust is earned through your actions, it's not pro-town behavior to trust everyone at the beginning of the game.

Both town AND scum want you to think of them as town. I am going to say this one more time, and I will not repeat it again.

wanting you to trust a person is not indicative of that person's alignment

.

Looking at statements alone and not in game relationships is pretty dumb.

And dismissing a point based purely on who said it is REALLY dumb.

My fourth is: if you are genuine, scum would have such an easy time manipulating you it isn't even funny.

I don't see how.

Scum A: "Hey guys, watch me be all modest and shit."
Scum B: "man, that guy is such a good player, I support player A"
Scum C: "Yea, like, A is soooo cool. Lets all support him."

You: "Man, that guy is both modest and is getting support from other players, clearly he is best qualified to be mayor."

--

Okay, I need to take a moment and re-evaluate my read of MonkeyMan again, because I am worried that I am letting myself vote him for being stupid.

[Socrates]

Rec's vote on me makes me go . I'll respond later. I want to sleep.

Posts 170 and 171 are :goodposting:.

[Moai Interceptor Cannons]

Your case on Kerrigan is almost nonexistent. I do not get anything about Kerrigan wanting to be mayor. In fact, I get the opposite.

Do people really not see the discrepancy between answering Serial's mayoral test thing and then claiming he doesn't want to be mayor?

My opinion on the case on Monkey. I'll acknowledge Charter's and Socrates' reasonings as valid, even if they're not as strong as Charter thinks they are. More on this below. Serial's reasoning is weak, and Hoopla's (and previously Reckoner's) is nonexistent as far as I see it. The basis behind Monkey's case ends at his page one post for me. Beyond that, it's Charter inflating it into something I don't get, and Monkey trying to justify it with something I don't get either. Monkey's offense is equal to Cathart's IMO, and the fact that Monkey stuck with it whilst Cathart retracted doesn't really make Cathart any better (if every statement could be retracted like that scum would have a field day). I find Monkey's reaction to the votes weird, but not scummy per se, especially not in the direction Serial thinks it is (we heavily disagree here, Serial).

Socrates' and Monkey's recent posts have both been a whole lot of blah blah blah - if there's anything important I actually need to read in them someone please point it out to me thanks. Also, unless we want to stretch the day to January 7 and let Hoopla choose who gets lynched, it looks like we really do need to elect a mayor first. My order of preference is Reckoner, Nhammen, Socrates. No-one else. People who want to be mayor need to start campaigning hard so that we can actually reach some kind of consensus. I don't want the majority of the day to be used up on mayor theory discussions (I'm looking at you, Hoopla and friends).

MIC, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why did you switch your support from Reck to me? There were other options available. What about me makes me stand out? Why were you supporting Reck in the first place?

Let's start with Reck. I supported him because of his very first post. Having the balls to run for mayor on page one is a town-tell to me. The fact that he did it on page one meant that he couldn't have made that decision after discussing it with his scumbuddies (as may be the case with Socrates). I also have a slight town read on him - contrary to what other people think - even if he is being pretty useless. I believe the mayor has to be the very opposite of convincing, such that the damage is minimised if the position lands on scum (and it's not like the town

needs

a doublevote), hence Reck. But obviously no-one else wanted Reck as mayor. I don't really like any of the other options. Socrates I'm not getting town vibes from (maybe a little). Serial and Hoopla I'm actually getting mild scum vibes from. I'm also worried about your jumping around and not sticking your vote/focus anywhere in particular, and I realise that you've never been scum before, but you're the best option out of everyone that actually has a chance of being mayor, so I'll gamble on you.