Mafia 103 - Ktown Mafia (Game Over)

[SolemnJ]

Furry: between wicked and cruelty, do either give you the conviction that they are more likely scum

wicked would be in my top few shots if I just went down the list with no reveal, I cant tell how much of this is from very solid tells and how much of this is from him misinterpreting my stuff enough that its making me wonder if it can even be unintentional. cruel would be in the middle ground. I dont want a lynch of him today by any means, but at the same time I dont have enough of a town read on him to make a fuss over him getting votes like some people.

Should be able to transfer time over from other stuff that has been sapping it tonight/tomorrow and continue pushing SJ a bit. I do like malp pressure, but want to keep toying with what I have for the time being.

ur really stalling, aren't you?

[Furry]

Im in more then one game hun. Back to this one now though.

[Furry]

1. There's a middle ground; those you have no read on. You pressure those who are scum, and those others who have not shown towntells.

2. Just repeating your own double negative;
neways: this goes back to number 1. And this doesnt seem to be an attack on me.

3. Procrastination is bad. I should have done it sooner. It would have led to a better end of a Day 1.

4. The voice in the back of my mind. Always, the number of possible outcomes are many, and one shouldn't assume things with haste. /emphasizes last part.

Hm...now I don't see much of an attack. Gimme some more.

Im not going to argue who gets pressured anymore. Its gotten into a very distracting arguement over semantics that really is not going to accomplish anything.

You shrugged off the whole "convienant" thing here. You didnt push your top suspect and instead went after secondary ones far away from deadline. You basically are saying "yeah I messed up". You are admitting that this is a strong and valid tell in the shadow of Haylen flipping town?

So you should never take a stance because there is always a chance that your opinion might change? If your mind changes it changes. You say why it did, and move on. You are outright refusing to take a solid stance on a player because your mind might change, this sure just sounds like a way to get out of ever taking a stance to me.

[Kdub]

mikeburnfire replaces foilist13. Thanks mikeburnfire!

[mikeburnfire]

Gah. When I said "12 players or less" I mean 12 players total, not 12 players still alive! You've tricked me Kdub!

Ah, well. I can still work with this. Not *too* big. I'll start digging into this during the weekend.

[Sir Chris]

Oh man, sorry guys. I have been fighting the flu all week and the last I saw this topic it was really slow moving. I'll attempt to get caught up and see what I have to think.

[Sir Chris]

Well, since I have been gone nothing really has changed. I think cruelty looks good, I think Wicked looks bad. In my fever haze at the moment, I can't think of anything to really add. I understand that stuff has been going on, but really, it seems kinda neutralish to me, it is troubling for me not to have many reads this game, I don't know if it is because of my current fever or if my scum read of wicked is just telling me to push for him too much and it is dulling me a bit.

[Wickedestjr]

1: Well, I presume there's more than one scum so it's conceivable that your partner(s) wanted him killed and you went along with it. This is a WIFOM deflection at best.

2: I didn't say bandwagoning gives you town credit. You were on a wagon that wasn't a mislynch. You specifically stated you wanted to be on a wagon despite not really liking CK as a lynch that much. There's absolutely no reason for town to do that.

1: First of all, nobody voted CK after I did. So I don't know what you meant by having my scumbuddies going along with it. Also, how could I have possibly planned this out? Odds are if I am scum, then some of my scumbuddies would have been on the Haylen lynch, so all these points look like grasping at straws now that I've completely destroyed your case.

2: So you are saying it would give me town credit for not being on the mislynch? If so, then this is also a bad point, because if anything, it would be better for me to go with what the majority went if I was really worrying about this.

Ok.

[1a: Let me lay this out. Hyposcum-wicked knows that the people on the CK wagon are town. Being on that wagon gives him cred with them (it does, people like when other people agree with them).] [1b: Hyposcum-wicked's partner(s?) don't like something Scott said, and want him lynched. Hyposcum-wicked shrugs, knowing (well, believing) he can't be implicated. Scott dies, cruelty questions Hyposcum-wicked about being on the bandwagon, Hyposcum-wicked points out that Scott died and he therefore must be innocent. Cruelty notes that this isn't a viable defence, Hyposcum-wicked misreps cruelty.]

2: WIFOM/misrep. You specifically stated that you wanted to be on a bandwagon, you also specifically stated that you weren't feeling the CK lynch, in the same post you joined his wagon. Why would town do this? There's literally no logical reason.

1a: Why would I want Scott and Torqez to like me? They were two of the more quiet players. Also, earlier I thoughtthat this was what you meant and you said:

I didn't say bandwagoning gives you town credit. You were on a wagon that wasn't a mislynch. You specifically stated you wanted to be on a wagon despite not really liking CK as a lynch that much. There's absolutely no reason for town to do that.

...So which is it?


1b: How is this reverant? I don't really understand what you are saying here.


2: You are misrepping me now. Where did I say that I wasn't feeling the CK lynch?

1: So scum is ALWAYS anti-town? 2: Or would you concede that occasionally their survival becomes more important than bringing down town?

1: Where the heck did I say that? Stop twisting my words scum.
2: This has absolutely nothing to do with my survival. I wasn't even on the chopping block Day 1. Quit imagining.

1: I didn't say you said that. This is again misrepresentation. I was asking if you would agree that occasionally (or even often?) scum will act in a null or pro-town manner in order to survive.

2: As Rhinox said, I was talking hypothetically. The point I was making was that scum doesn't necessarily always act anti-town; they'd be identified fairly quickly and easily. Interesting response, though.

1: Okay, so let me get this straight, because I have no clue what you are saying. I said that I'd vote CK, because he was my preference, and I'd just let everybody else vote the person they prefer. You asked me how doing that is pro-town. I said it wasn't necessarily pro-town, but that it isn't anti-town, meaning it isn't detrimental to the town. Then you said "So scum is ALWAYS anti-town?" I don't even understand how this question is even reverant. I never said anything about scum. I'm trying to convince the town that I am town.

2: Alright, well if that is what you were asking, then how is that reverant?

Nope, Haylen and CK were below Furry, VistaSoldier, and Katniss on my scumlist.

I read "people that may be good lynch choices" as more important that "people I'd be willing to lynch". This is interesting though.

Apparently putting my suspects in order isn't enough of a give away.

Scum would love to be in a position whereby they can attack townies who were on a wagon that resulted in a mislynch.

This is another bad point.

How so? It's maybe slightly WIFOMish but I don't think any rational person would disagree with it.

It's a bad point not only because it is WIFOMish, because only somebody who doesn't know how to play this game would do that as scum. Why? Because there were 8 people that participated in the lynch bandwagon, which would mean that picking on anybody for it would be unintelligent as town, because clearly there were at least a few townies that did it also. Also, this is an accusation that could be thrown back at scum, because they could be accused of planning this out to make themselves look good. Two other reasons why I dislike this point:

1. I have never seen this happen in any game. Sure, people have used bandwagon analysis, but people never accuse others just for being on the lynch wagon. Have you ever experienced this? It would take a few days to actually make a good accusation such as being on all the lynch wagons, or something like that. Also, the CK wagon was larger at the time of my vote, so I don't know why you are even considering this point.

2. Did I critisice anybody on the Haylen wagon? Nope. My first vote day 2 was for Furry who wasn't on the Haylen wagon. I didn't say anything negative about the Haylen wagoners.

Also, like I keep saying: I was voting Haylen at a moment in time. Why would I want to attack the people who were voting the same person I was?

Also, just noticed this.

However, I think both you and malpascp are town.

mal has nine posts in this entire game. 9 posts in 23 pages. How can you possibly have a read on him? Buddying (with SirChris, probably trying to clear your scumbuddy mal).

My read on malpascp is partly a meta read and partly due to gut. As for Sir Chris, it was a few of his recent posts that made me think he was town. I wasn't buddying him though.

This (below) isn't an attack, just a question.

Occasionally I phrase my attacks as questions. What does it matter though?

Why would you vote him for not contributing after we lynched a townie for that same reason?

So you're going to allow people to lurk because Haylen didn't contribute, got lynched for it and flipped town? Explain how this is a good policy.

Lynching lurkers is only a good move when somebody that was being bandwagoned claimed a power role, and it is a day before deadline. Otherwise, it isn't a good lynch choice. Lurking/not contributing isn't even a reliable scumtell. In my first large normal Mafia 96, none of the scum lurked. Three of the most useless players in that game were Lowell, Mufasa, and Empking's Alt. They were all town-alligned. Lynching lurkers is a bad move.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, when doing pbpa, you need to take into context that people change their minds over time.

What action of mine was this directed at?

Also, Wicked, you said ud explain something when I return.

I was going to explain when you responded to this:

Later we get a 'case'

Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.

He fits my mold of scum/badtown.

-Spamming (which almost everyone was doing)
-Defending himself "dumbly" (what exactly is 'dumbly' and why is it a tell?)
-Random/selfvote (why is this a tell?)

Rhinox, what exactly made malpascp's vote the worst?

1: He's acting a bit scummy and a 2: little too eager for information...

1: How? Anything in particular?

2: Can you explain where I was doing this? Also, why does it mean I'm scum?

I find it interesting that the only people who would seem to want Scott brosius dead are CrueKnight and Furry. Scott Brosius only posted a couple of times. So actually...
unvote
vote:CrueKnight

Why do you choose CK and not Furry?


I really dislike SolemnJ's vote for CK. Not because I think CK is town, but because the accusationn relies around Furry being scum, which would imply that Furry is the better choice.

[Kdub]

malpascp is being replaced due to lack of activity.

Vote Count

CrueKnight (2)

- danakillsu, SolemnJ

Furry (0)

-

cruelty (1)

- Wickedestjr

Sir Chris (1)

- malpascp

Rhinox (0)

-

Wickedestjr (2)

- Sir Chris, cruelty

malpascp (2)

- Rhinox, Faraday

Faraday (0)

-

SolemnJ (1)

- Furry

danakillsu (0)

-

mikeburnfire (0)

-

cades (0)

-

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (3)

- cades, CrueKnight, mikeburnfire

12 players alive, 7 votes needed to lynch.

Deadline is December 19, ~11:00 am MST

[mikeburnfire]

Before I begin my re-read, can somebody give me a brief summary of what happened so far so that I have some framework in mind?

[SolemnJ]

1. There's a middle ground; those you have no read on. You pressure those who are scum, and those others who have not shown towntells.

2. Just repeating your own double negative;
neways: this goes back to number 1. And this doesnt seem to be an attack on me.

3. Procrastination is bad. I should have done it sooner. It would have led to a better end of a Day 1.

4. The voice in the back of my mind. Always, the number of possible outcomes are many, and one shouldn't assume things with haste. /emphasizes last part.

Hm...now I don't see much of an attack. Gimme some more.

Im not going to argue who gets pressured anymore. Its gotten into a very distracting arguement over semantics that really is not going to accomplish anything.

You shrugged off the whole "convienant" thing here. You didnt push your top suspect and instead went after secondary ones far away from deadline. You basically are saying "yeah I messed up". You are admitting that this is a strong and valid tell in the shadow of Haylen flipping town?

So you should never take a stance because there is always a chance that your opinion might change? If your mind changes it changes. You say why it did, and move on. You are outright refusing to take a solid stance on a player because your mind might change, this sure just sounds like a way to get out of ever taking a stance to me.

Good excuse above this post.

I think you're putting words in my mouth here.

If you want to talk bout how I attack based on convenience: there are more than one scum in this game. I don't organize my suspects as "Top" Suspects and "Secondary Suspects". I organize it as "Scum who should/can be lynched today", and "Scum who needs to slip more before being lynched".

***

@Wicked: Probably one of them before I made that post. It'd be hard to find it. Tell me the page I made the post.

Next, Furry's review of my case is...wrong.

Everyone is not spamming, and CK continues to do this: lack contribution with still yet a number of posts.
CK's defense NEVER covered the points against him.
And as for random/self vote: this goes back to CK's lack of desire to contribute. He could have voted and attacked someone he thought was scum.

***

And as for the last part, my accusation relies around Furry being scum, yes. This would bring one to think that we should lynch Furry first to lynch CK, but for two reasons, I prefer the reverse:

1. Furry is contributing more. This means whether or not he is scum, its better he survives, thx to his wonderful amassment of knowledge of who is scum and town.

2. Furry isnt as scummy as CK.

[Wickedestjr]

Well, basically, the first four pages were part of the RVS and then Mr. Squirrel started getting annoyed by the questions I was asking to get us out of the RVS. Then me and him got into this argument which got us out of the RVS. He became quiet, and then I started to suspect CrueKnight, and later started a bandwagon on him. Meanwhile, a player named Haylen was contributing nothing, and she was making inconsistent excuses. It was a few days before deadline I think, and I voted CK because he was the bandwagon I liked the most. In the end, Haylen got lynched. Day 2 cruelty started attacking me for not voting my top suspect, but instead joining the bandwagon I liked. Now we have gotten into a long argument.

That is my summary, but I may have left out some other important things.

[Wickedestjr]

EBWOP: That was directed at mike.

[Wickedestjr]

Is this fucking serious? So b/c ONE townie does it, it means it's not scummy? Really Wicked? Oh god this is unbelievably bad.

Lurking/not contributing is a stupid reason to lynch a player for in general anyway. How is that opinion "unbelievably bad"?

Its a non-sequitor because you can't form an argument that players who are non-contributing are likely to be town based on the single occurance of 1 town non-contributing player.

I'm not saying he's likely to be town, I'm just saying it doesn't mean he's scum.

1: Wait I thought you just said that haylen was lynched for her excuses and not her non-contribution? I don't recall voting malp for neither excuses nor non-contribution...

Yes, Haylen was lynched for her excuses, but she also didn't contribute. But, even though we didn't lynch her for that, it still shows that townies do it.

2: Please direct me to where I said I was voting malp for non-contribution...

Why are you misrepping the reasons for my desire to lynch malp?

I apologize. I confused your vote with the other votes for non-contribution.

And in post 599, if I understand correctly, you're taking issue with cruelty claiming to have started the wagon when the reason haylen was lynched was not his own reason? Okay, well its interesting, but I don't see it as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. I don't see this as cruelty attempting to say that he took a strong stand on the haylen wagon, I interpret this as cruelty's response to your accusation that he kept his vote on haylen after he expressed a desire not to have her lynched.

You are forgetting that cruelty made the comment that he had started the wagon after I had made a comment regarding his stance.

wicked: why was crueknight a better lynch choice yesterday than haylen, ignoring the obvious now known fact that haylen was town?

I had a gut read telling me that Haylen was town, but the evidence pointing to scumHaylen was just too much for me to follow my gut read, so that's why I had her high up on my list of suspects. CrueKnight on the other hand, I had gotten a scum gut read from and evidence that pointed to him being scum. That is why he was my preference.

Why aren't you today pursuing your top 3 suspects from yesterday: foilist, Furry, and Katniss/Cades?

First of all, I have been pursuing my suspicion of Furry, but foilist and cades can't excuse the actions of their predecessors, and their predecessors' actions were the ones that made me suspicious, so there is really nothing I can do about that. cruelty has rose to the top of my suspect list, mostly because of today's actions plus a few sudden epiphanies.

After rereading, I've also come to the conclusion that whoever the scum are, they aren't exactly the brightest lot... more on this later in the game if/when a certain event happens.

I'm curious:

1. Why did you make this comment?

2. Does this imply that you think you know who the scum are?

Well I agreed with foilist's reason for voting. I also missed the actual "picking a wagon" part, so I guess it's slightly better but not hugely.

Wait, but you said this:

What I find funny is that had I jumped on the Haylen bandwagon, you most likely would have had no problems with it, as I believe there were several other players that did, and you didn't attack any of them.

I would have if you'd said that Haylen was only your fourth suspect.

So....?


Furry, please respond to post 551.

@the rest of the town - What are your thoughs on 551?

[SolemnJ]

im making a thread in mafia discussion about lynching for non-contribution after this is all over.

Furry, I think I see what you are saying. One more question: Let's say that I vote for somebody that hasn't done anything scummy nor townie, and I do it mainly to pressure vote them. Does that mean I want them lynched?

I dunno, I wouldnt be pressure voting a neutral/no read.

Let's look at the contradiction one more time. Hopefully this time you'll understand why I was voting you:

I think voting for someone means you want them lynched.

Then again im not really into the 'hip and trendy' lifestyles that are going on now adays. Does 'dont necessarily want' mean 'would like to have' in today groovy slang?

and then you said:

Need to get caught up, but this is a fail of a HoS. Pressure votes work wonders. People play differently under pressure

Keep in mind that your second quote was in response to me giving CrueKnight an HoS. Remember why I gave CrueKnight the HoS? One of the reasons was because CrueKnight had said:

I'm just voting for pressure. I do not have any intentions to lynch you.

You seemed to have a problem with me attacking this. However, you also disagree with it. So...thanks for claiming scum.

This is the post wicked is talking about.

This is where I got some of my Furry/CK connection.
But I really didnt read this post, but instead just the quotes- I overviewed it, and all i saw was you restating the attack on furry.

But that CK quote thrown into the open is new. And very valid.

[Wickedestjr]

@Wicked: Probably one of them before I made that post. It'd be hard to find it. Tell me the page I made the post.

You made the post on page 23.


Now that SolemnJ has defended himself, I will explain why I believe that Furry misrepresented it. He took this:

Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.

He fits my mold of scum/badtown.

and broke it into three parts, that when they each stand alone, don't mean much, but together, actually make a good case for somebody that likes lynching people that don't contribute. For example, the second point would be a terrible point alone. Obviously defending yourself isn't a scumtell, because it prevents the town from mislynching a townie. However, it is more meaningful when the other points are added to it. CK spent most of his posts defending himself, which was the point I believe SolemnJ was trying to show, and Furry ignored that.

And as for the last part, my accusation relies around Furry being scum, yes. This would bring one to think that we should lynch Furry first to lynch CK, but for two reasons, I prefer the reverse:

1. Furry is contributing more. This means whether or not he is scum, its better he survives, thx to his wonderful amassment of knowledge of who is scum and town.

2. Furry isnt as scummy as CK.

Two questions:

1. Why isn't Furry as scummy as CK?

2. Do you like Furry's contributions so far in the game? If so, what in particular?

[Rhinox]

@SolemnJ: what do you mean by "Bussing a scumpal?" Who is bussing a scumpal and why?

The lack of activity in this game is very frustrating. Just because there is a deadline does not mean we have to wait for the deadline to come before we do anything.

i answered that.

oh... is this the answer?

Bussing a scumpal?

vote CrueKnight

What are you talking about? And it that reason alone you are voting for me? Please elaborate on that.

I've been attacking you for a while.

Your post about your suspicions against Furry about him "being on the top of your list" for "no particular reason" really interested me.

If so, its very weak and I don't see it. I don't see this as showing how they are scum together. I don't like you calling something bussing when the allignment or both players in unknown. Why vote ck and not furry if they're both scum? edit: you've already answered this, but I still don't like the pairing and potential lining up of lynches, especially because I don't really think either of them are scum.

Gah. When I said "12 players or less" I mean 12 players total, not 12 players still alive! You've tricked me Kdub!

Ah, well. I can still work with this. Not *too* big. I'll start digging into this during the weekend.

welcome.

Rhinox, what exactly made malpascp's vote the worst?

He stated Haylen's claim was false without giving any reasons why. He never before then talked about haylen at all. And I don't get what this comment was supposed to mean at all:

Unless someone think vanilla can claim doc, I sugest to lynch her.

The last quote in your post #633 should be attributed to danakillsu, not me.

im making a thread in mafia discussion about lynching for non-contribution after this is all over.

Search for "Lynch all lurkers", the post is already there.

[mikeburnfire]

Okay, did a quick readthrough. Thanks to wicked for the skeleton version.

I'm a bit frustrated that we lost our vigilante on Day 1, but given how Haylen posted, I can't say I can blame anyone explicitly. Sir Chris's unvote-quick revote is something I consider suspicious.


Initially, I liked the amount of participation by like Mr Squirrel, Wickedjr, furry, and Inquisitor. Mr Squirrel make some sensible posts, and his replacement Rhinox gives me good vibes. Furry and Inquisitor also seemed legit (even before Inq got lynched).

I agree with Rhinox that malpas doesn't look good. He keeps voting people I have good vibes about, I feel that he's lurking a bit, and he just really offsets me. I have similar feelings about cruenight. Even though I would consider him slightly less suspicious due to his participation, I felt that some of his posts were unhelpful, I didn't like a lot of his votes, and I just get bad vibes from him.

I think that even though some players have turned the spotlight on Wicked, we should look elsewhere. He's been very active and we can always scrutinize his lengthy posts to see if he's linked to anyone later. Today we should go after those who have posted little or posted unhelpfully. Since both the mal and crue wagons only have two votes, I'm going to side against the person I feel is more suspicious.

vote: Malpascp

Now, if you want me to give input on a specific player I can go back and to a iso/pbpa and get back to you. And if I missed something you think is important let me know.

[Kdub]

kunkstar7 replaces malpascp. Thanks kunkstar7! Prods will go out tomorrow to eligible players.

[kunkstar7]

Ok, just a quick post checking in. I'm going to read over the entire thread, and opinions and comments coming next.

[kunkstar7]

Ok starting off with the current votes against me, to the best of my knowledge they are based on poor participation from earlier? Although I completely see your point about his vote on the lynch, I am not him and can't explain that what he was thinking.

So far Wicked is seeming scummy, as I read through several posts, he makes several comments that are odd.

Day 2 cruelty started attacking me for not voting my top suspect, but instead joining the bandwagon I liked.

My main question to Wicked is why would you not vote your top suspect, instead of just going with whatever bandwagon seemed fitting? That's seems more like you don't care who really gets lynched, just pick one. If you had a really strong feeling about your top suspect I think you should have pursued it better.

Cades has not posted barely anything, his post mentioning his lurking is bad, instead of just posting that you ARE lurking, you should have tried to add actual content. We have had too many lurkers in this game for its own good.

Furry seems pretty pro-town, although his strong defense of CrueKnight strikes me odd. Yet he has a quite valid point to back up his reasoning.

Reading through Sir Chris's posts, I felt a bad vibe from him as well, I'm not sure what to make of his insistence of a possible SK.

I don't have enough of a basis for any vote, I need a little play time to develop a true decision, so

unvote

.

[Sir Chris]

Didn't I say that there probably was not an SK, not the other way around?

[kunkstar7]

Ah yes. Stupid me, should have gone back and reread again >_>. Honestly there are too many pages to read through and keep everything straight replacing in.

And one question..what is the meaning of iso?

[mikeburnfire]

When you view all the posts by one specific player. Down at the bottom you can isolate their posts.