Mafia 108 - Mafia With The Quickness - over!

[Ellibereth]

Glork, what do you think about Neto?

Vote: Neto

[Netopalis]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Ellibereth has been right on occasion, but his posts show no real reasoning behind said suspicions. I attack players of all statuses for this - I'm good friends with Albert, but him and I have butted heads over this issue on a number of different occasions.

I think that part of the problem is that, since there have in the past been players who used cryptic methods to achieve results, it is automatically assumed that a person who plays cryptically gets results. I played a game in which Battle Mage was *convinced* that I was scum without posting reasoning. He then attacked me when I asked for reasoning and the town followed because he apparently has this mystical aura about him that makes people follow him. I was town, of course, and BM ended up killed right before the scum won the endgame.

I also think that it should be noted that I don't exactly have a shabby track record. I've won the majority of my games and my suspicions are often proven valid. For a good exemplar of my playstyle, please see day 2 of Hellsing Mafia in Coney Island.

[Netopalis]

You were already voting me, Ellibereth.

[Ellibereth]

You were already voting me, Ellibereth.

I was? I thought it was still on Gayle.

[camn]

You were already voting me, Ellibereth.

inaccurate.

[camn]

Now, Ellibreth..

Why is Gayle scum?

[Glork]

Glork, what do you think about Neto?

Vote: Neto

Undecided. I do agree with you that his "scumhunting to words posted" ratio is depressingly low, but I'm not willing to call it definitively scummy at the moment. This particular spat seems to be little more than a conflict in playstyles.

[camn]

I agree that this argument is about nothing.
But it is certainly not scum/scum, IMO.

[Glork]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Ellibereth has been right on occasion, but his posts show no real reasoning behind said suspicions. I attack players of all statuses for this - I'm good friends with Albert, but him and I have butted heads over this issue on a number of different occasions.

I think that part of the problem is that, since there have in the past been players who used cryptic methods to achieve results, it is automatically assumed that a person who plays cryptically gets results. I played a game in which Battle Mage was *convinced* that I was scum without posting reasoning. He then attacked me when I asked for reasoning and the town followed because he apparently has this mystical aura about him that makes people follow him. I was town, of course, and BM ended up killed right before the scum won the endgame.

I don't think people make that assumption. I think that they can be persuaded to follow said person, but the playstyle is more results-driven than any other. If Elli can make it work, fine. If not, he's going to have to change or face a lot of early lynches.

Also, BM is a horrible example to use. If BabyJesus is the paragon of said playstyle, BM is the anti-Christ. It's sad to know that, after years of being on Scum, BM hasn't realized that he just can't make it work.


On a semi-related note, you called Elli's playstyle "deadweight if not downright scummy." Are you okay with potentially cutting away "deadweight town" on D1?

[Ellibereth]

Now, Ellibreth..

Why is Gayle scum?

If Neto's scum (he is), then it's very likely Gayle's scum with him. It's a feeling I get from Neto's posts from 179-184.
My original vote on Gayle was for not commenting on anything in two posts. His 3rd was just a direct (sarcastic) reaction to my vote, nothing else. I just get scummy vibes from him.

[Annachie]

I'm thinking Elli/Neto is town v town.

Elli seems to be playing true to style, and the main difference I've noticed in Neto's so far is that RQS thing, which is attracting attention to him. Perhaps they are both posting more than that other game they were both in but the pace of this game is much faster.

Still reading though.

[Gayle]

My original vote on Gayle was for not commenting on anything in two posts. His 3rd was just a direct (sarcastic) reaction to my vote, nothing else. I just get scummy vibes from him.

While my third post was indeed mostly a joke, the end was not. My point was that you vote first and give reasons later, and also that your summary of Neto's posts were misleading.

[Netopalis]

Glork: Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with a policy lynch, given that there have been substantial scumhunting efforts made during the day, the policy lynched player has at least a bit of scummishness and that there is not a strong reason to do otherwise. As said earlier, D1 lynches are statistically bad - the vast majority of them are mislynches. Therefore, if we're probably going to mislynch anyway, it's best to mislynch the player that will contribute the least. I also find, however, that often times the player that you want to policy lynch is the player that's scum anyway.

[Incognito]

Vote Count #5 of Day 1

Maemuki (1) <-~ Glork
Netopalis (3) <-~ Haylen, Zachrulez, Ellibereth
Netlava (2) <-~ SaintKerrigan, Kmd4390
Zachrulez (1) <-~ Bogre
*Ellibereth (3) <-~ Gayle, Netopalis, camn

Not voting (3) <-~ Annachie, Netlava, Maemuki

With 13 alive, 7 votes will do it.

Note:

an asterisk by a player's name indicates said player would be lynched if Day were to end right this moment without a lynch majority.

Saturday, January 9th at 2 P.M. EST

[Netopalis]

To start some more productive discussion, I present the following suspicions.

I would be willing to lynch the following 3 players today, as of right now (In no particular order):

Netlava - Netlava's posts are short, content free and are blatant attempts to copy someone else's suspicions. The fact that he normally plays like this makes it a bit tough to call him as scum or town, but I feel fairly confident that this is above and beyond the usual. Still, it's my hope that we can get him replaced and not have to lynch him.

Ellibereth - It seems to me that Ellibereth came into this game with a goal: To lynch me for my previous attacks on him. This could be because he felt that I would be an easy target based on my previous game (It's true, I do tend to say controversial things on D1 - I find it to be productive, but unfortunately, it does get me lynched sometimes). Regardless, his play is distinctly anti-town and should not be rewarded.

Maemuki - Maemuki has used what is perhaps the most bizarre defense that I have ever seen in a Mafia game: I'm a known lurker. Her posts do indicate this: I can't find a single noteworthy sentence amongst them.

Lesser suspicion goes to two players:
Camn - Hasn't posted much and what he has posted has been devoid of reasoning or logic. I would like to see some better notes from him regarding his vote on Ellibereth and any other assertions that he feels are worthy of discussion.


SaintKerrigan - I've moved SK down to the lower category because apparently he was busy. My point still stands, though, that his posts have been largely cases of "Yeah, what he said!".

All in all, I feel that we have a number of good lynch targets for the day. I would like to hear from each of these players, as the main running theme in this game seems to be "Lack of original content". To each of you: Please try to remedy this.

[Glork]

Glork: Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with a policy lynch, given that there have been substantial scumhunting efforts made during the day, the policy lynched player has at least a bit of scummishness and that there is not a strong reason to do otherwise. As said earlier, D1 lynches are statistically bad - the vast majority of them are mislynches. Therefore, if we're probably going to mislynch anyway, it's best to mislynch the player that will contribute the least. I also find, however, that often times the player that you want to policy lynch is the player that's scum anyway.

For someone who complained about sub-optimal D1 success rates, this is a very odd stance for you to take. This post says to me "well, we tried to find scum, but in the absence of being able to do so, I'm okay lynching Elli instead."

I can't work my head around the notion that you cite "improving D2 gameplay" as a reason to do away with the Random Voting Stage, then sit here and tell me that "well since D1 lynch rates are bad anyway, we might as well policy lynch." It's a vast double standard, and I don't like it at all.

[Glork]

In fact,

Unvote, Vote: Neto

[Netopalis]

I'm not sure that I see the inconsistency. We need to improve D1 play, yes. Ideally, it would lead to more surety over who the lynch should be for D1. If we can't come up with a good lynch target, though, it seems only logical to lynch someone who will only end up hurting the town in the future.

[Glork]

You're conceding that Elli isn't a good scum target but is a good "policy lynch," which implies inside information.

[Netopalis]

No, I'm saying that she is both a good target AND a good policy lynch. There are two reasons for lynching him today.

[Netopalis]

On further thought, I think I can clarify my position a bit more:

Given a field of players that would be equally good lynch targets, it is logical to lynch the one that will hurt us the least if the lynch is wrong.

[Glork]

I just don't buy your sincerity regarding Elli's scumminess, and I still think your willingness to settle for a policy lynch betrays your call for better D1s.

"X is scummy, but even if he's not scum, he's a good policy lynch" is not an uncommon tactic for newish scums to make.

Additionally, if you want better D1 success rates, you should be lynching players only because they are scum. No bullshit secondary reasons like "good information" or "policy lynch" or "I think X is trying to get back at me." Protown players don't try to weed out weak townspeople. Your one and only job is to hunt SCUM -- not to try to alter another person's playstyle, because you think they're "being unhelpful."


Finally -- and this has nothing to do with you being scum or town -- I think you need to get over yourself and this ridiculous idea that anybody would "come into a game" with revenge over a previous game/attack on their mind. I don't know what happened between you and Elli in any previous game, but fucking get over it. This is a different game, and this "he's trying to get back at me so he's being unhelpful" notion you've got in your head is either misguided paranoia or another bullshit, malicious excuse. Either way, it is neither needed nor wanted in this game.

[Annachie]

Neto. How would you feel when I say that you fall into that hurting the town spot as well.

Whilst I also dislike the RVS, and convienently slept through it this morning (Game start was 06:00 local, I thought it was 05:00 and had returned to bed) your theory post during it has distracted us and provided a lot of white noise for scum to hide in.

[Netopalis]

*shrugs* I still think it's difficult to refute my position that, given equal candidates, you should lynch the one that plays the worst. I don't feel that breaks internal consistency whatsoever. However, I'd rather not get drawn into yet another theoretical argument.

Annachie: I would disagree. I never intended to enter into theory discussions, I was asked why I hated random votes. People then continued to press me for more information. I would have been perfectly fine if KMD and, indeed, everybody else had just ignored my first post and moved on. Instead, people were determined to poke and prod at me for my theoretical positions, and then attack me for discussing theory. It's really rather frustrating. I can't stop discussing theory or certain people will attack me, yet I can't continue discussing it or I derail and get attacked by others.

Of course, I've learned in life that it's impossible to please everybody. Therefore, I've stopped trying. I would just hope that you can appreciate the situation that I've been put in, all due to a single phrase that was blown way out of proportion.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and Glork, another thing: I'm only choosing to assume that Ellibereth is still angry at me because his actions make no sense otherwise. He came into this game swinging at me to the fences for little-to-no reason. The only thing that I could think of was that he was still mad at me. I don't think it's that unreasonable of a position. Perhaps I'm wrong. I really hope that I am. But in the absence of a logical explanation to the contrary, I'm forced to accept the only answer that seems logical to me.