DP12 JeepFest Mafia GAME OVER

[the silent speaker]

I wonder. If PB has a post restriction, which he implied he did, that use of his role means he can only post once, the fact that he posted more than once on Day 1 implies that he didn't use his role. Why not?

The reason I FOSed the people I did, and voted Commodore, is that they were all at least a little scummy in

all

my scenarios, not just two out of three. I'd be opn to switching my vote to any of the people I FOSed, but I'd like to see a vote count first.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Vote count, nine to evict:

Commodore Amazing 3 (TSS, Vesuvan, Axelrod)
Mr Stoofer 2 (Leonidas, Fuldu)
Axelrod 2 (Mr Stoofer, Commodore Amazing)
MeMe 1 (rolandofthewhite)
Nox 1 (Loudmouthlee)
Rolandofthewhite 1 (SaberKitty)
Peacebringer 1 (Nanook)
Vesuvan 1 (Someone)
Someone 1 (MeMe)

There is a reasonable amount of discussion but very little focus on voting. Under the circumstance, I am not keen on introducing a deadline, but I will if the day drags on.

[Nox]

Alright. Damn the one-liners contentless posts. I'll

vote:rolandthewhite

[rolandofthewhite]

Would you consider the role name of "mith" to be scum?

[LoudmouthLee]

Would you consider the role name of "mith" to be scum?

I wouldn't... but I'm curious to know why you asked.

[Fuldu]

Would you consider the role name of "mith" to be scum?

Oh, that's totally the wrong way to approach whatever you're trying to say. It comes across as extremely scummy to frame whatever you're talking about as a question about whether a particular role name is scummy. Look at it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know where you're going with this:

Option 1 - You could be claiming mith. The question is then largely rhetorical in a "Do you really think 'mith' is going to be scum?" way.

Option 2 - You could have a piece of information about some other player and are trying to decide what to do with it. Then the question serves a valuable purpose in deciding whether to out scum (good) or out an innocent (bad).

Option 3 - You could be scum taking heat and trying to cover your tracks somehow by making stuff up.

But here's the thing. When you don't say which of those options you're pursuing, but just ask your question, it greatly increases the appearance that it's Option 3 and you're trying to figure out whether Option 1 or Option 2 will play better. If people say they think 'mith' is a pro-town role, then you claim 'mith.' If people say they think 'mith' is scummy, you pin it on another person to get them lynched. This buys you another day, anyway.

In short, if you're going to ask a question about the prospective scumminess of a role name, tell us why first. You've already given away that you intend to reveal something, but it's in town's interest to put the why before the what.

[rolandofthewhite]

I have two bits of role name information from different players in this game, one of whom is "mith". I know that mith is a good player and stuff, and I sort of thought that the name might indicate scum, but I wasn't sure. It seems we're just sort of spinning around in circles here, and I was trying to give us a topic to discuss.

[MeMe]

He's not

that

good.

The role of mith could be easily written as evil or good, but seeing as... 1) he's the owner of mafiascum and has access to information that most of us don't and 2) is the designated moderator for most of the mafia games in face-to-face get togethers, even making custom cards for the purpose this year... I'd be more likely to guess him as being helpful than harmful in this particular theme.

My two cents.

[rolandofthewhite]

Just wondering. I think he's been mafia in every game I've been in with him.

Maybe that's why I thought it was a scummy name.

[Commodore Amazing]

My guess is that mith is not scum, and is something other than just "townie."

[Vesuvan]

On the Mith issue, I suspect that whether town or mafia, the role is probably a powerful one. It's probably best not to share too much more info about that unless you have some other indication one way or the other.

In the interest of getting some discussion happenning instead of going around in circles, I've gone and read through the thread and noticed a lot of good arguments toward looking closer at Axelrod, and noticed something that people haven't pointed out about him: I have counted a grand total of 2 posts in this thread where he is formulating an opinion of his own rather than just echoing someone else's points.

The previous arguments against him include poorly reasoned votes (actually, he's quoting someone else's reasons in most of these cases) and his tendancy to be very defensive of any questions brought up regarding him. There are also a number of very weak "tells" that I'm picking up, such as what looked like an early attempts to set up a safe-claim or identify roles that might have additional information about the setup with his early speculation. Looking over the whole thread at once, I've noticed a lot of FOS'es thrown his way, and well-reasoned ones at that, but also that he has been able to slip under the radar very effectively, in several cases thanks to attention being drawn toward other people (which might indicate fellow mafia members if he turns out to be one).

It's a little on the annoying side that after the game has been going for so long that we have relatively little to work with, but this looks like the strongest lead I can see at this time.

While I'm still suspicious of CA's misrepresentation of Nox's voting pattern on day 1, I'm more suspicious of just what's going on with Axelrod, so

Unvote: CA, Vote: Axelrod

[Axelrod]

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You think I only have two posts where I'm expressing my own opinion?

And you think I'm slipping under the radar?

I freely admit that the CA vote was more of a bandwagon vote than I usually make (and it's the

only

vote I have like that). The reason for that (which I thought I said, but some people either missed or are ignoring) was that DP said he wanted more voting, TSS had just put forward a good analysis which had CA as possible scum in several scenarios, and I thought that was as good a lead as any and worth following up on. So much for trying to appease the Mod.

And I

do

understand the point TSS was making. I also understand it was basically just a logical speculation. But I think CA's reaction to my vote was interesting, as were the reactions of several people who have now tried to cast suspicion on me.

Yes, I do tend to get defensive when people vote for me. Since I know I haven't done anything voteworthy, voting for me makes me suspicious. You should see what just happened to me in a game on MTGNews.

On the 'Mith" issue. At the risk of bringing up a theory that was roundly criticized the first time around (but at least it was my theory, right Vesuvan?), I'll say that, as someone who was actually in attendance at the Jeepfest, I would at least initially be less suspicious of that Role as a Scum role. I didn't even know that Mith was the owner of this site. That being the case, it also seems more likely to be a power role of some type, so if Roland knows who it is, he should definately keep quiet. (on no, I agreed with Vesuvan).

Sorry for the sarcasm. As I said, I just went through this kind of thing in another game. I get penalized for actually talking, when numerous others (Leonidas anyone?)

are

actually floating under the radar. But that's okay. I accept it.

[MeMe]

~retrieval~

[Axelrod]

Also,

Unvote: Commodore Amazing

I don't think I'll be following anyone else's lead anymore. I'm going to re-read the thread and I'll get back to you.

[Fuldu]

I don't know what the suggestion of only two posts expressing your opinion is about, Axelrod. It seems like you've done a lot of it, so I'm not really sure where that claim came from. But, in going through your posts to discover that, I did find a couple of things that I find scummy.

First: several different ad hominem attacks on Leonidas. At first it comes across as genuine concern that he's not a very regular poster, but as the comments continue, they start to look much more like you're attacking him personally to try to get a rise out of him. Baiting other players isn't usually an especially pro-town tactic.

Second: your analysis of the end-of-day vote patterns misses an important point. Scum may not have needed to shift their votes in order to obtain a particular desired lynch (and your comments on Someone are good ones), but that doesn't mean that there was no value to scum of moving their votes around. There are lots of other reasons it might have been to their benefit. They may have been trying to spread the votes out so as not to draw attention to themselves either for not voting or for all voting on the same person. If there are two scum groups, one might have been trying to induce the other into believing olio to be scum and using the kill there. They may have attempted an unsuccessful Night One kill on PBuG and thus felt it would be better to lynch him. These aren't all likely scenarios, but the sheer number of them diminishes your argument substantially. And since you try to imply your own innocence through this chain of logic, the fact that it's really not that good an argument raises concerns.

unvote: Mr. Stoofer; vote: Axelrod

[Nox]

Alright, that's it.

FOS: Axelrod, Vesuvan and Fuldu

Are you guys blind? You nitpick eachother's uberly long post by retorting with even longer posts, trying to dig something up on ther other. Of course, this

could

be seen as normal; however, You have this guy here (rolandthewhite) who only posts once in a while, with oneliners and votes on current bandwagons. I won't believe that you have so much to say about eachother, but this guy can slip under your radar and pull off his oneliner crap. This is beyond me.

I'm not too fond of Commodore Amazing either. However, out of the three FOS's mentionned above, Fuldu seems the least scummy. Why? Because I shared most of his point of views and I found his arguments to be valid. The only reason I FOSed him is because he too is turning a blind eye to rolandthewhite's behavior.

[Axelrod]

Okay, a few more thoughts: Fuldu, as far as your points go (1) What you are calling an "ad hominem" attack on Leonidas is just me pointing out that he is getting away with some serious lurking in this game. His last post was a week ago. And even when he posts, he isn't saying much of anything. And "baiting" as you put it, is what this game is all about. Or maybe you mean something different by the term. I certainly didn't mean to insult him, if that's what you thought. I sometime do resent it when people who don't post get away with it, while I--in trying to contribute-get attacked.

Why are you defending him anyway? You have done it more than once, to the point of even following his "based exclusively on guts" vote on Mr. Stoofer.

And (2) saying that there are other reasons that scum could have voted at the end of the day yesterday does not invalidate the analysis. You could make that same kind of argument about anything in this game. There are

always

other possible reasons that someome might or might not have taken an action. I'm just looking at one, the one I thought most reasonable at the time.

However, that said, there

is

a problem with my earlier argument (or, at least, there's another problem) In re-reading the thread, I have realized I used the wrong time-frame to really look at the votes. I looked at it when there was 5 each on PBug and Olio and 4 on Someone with 24 hour to go.

What is potentially more revealing, however, is where the votes were and how they went immediately after DP announced the deadline for the day, which was in post #147.

At

that

point, Someone, Saberkitty, Peacebringer, and Olio were all

tied

at three votes each (with Saberkitty's on the way down). PBug wasn't really even in the picture. So what happened?

After the deadline was announced, the first vote actually went to

Someone

--cast by Mr. Stoofer. Someone was then leading the vote (with Nanook, Myself, and PBug being the other voters). Then Nox, who was the only person voting PBug at the time, posts a PBPA on PBug that points out his questionable posts, and suddenly the votes all go flooding to PBug. Rolandof theWhite votes PBug with no comment. Same with MeMe. Same with The Shadow. Then Fuldu (though he, at least, puts some content behind it). So now PBug's very quickly up to five and leading.

At the risk of repeating myself, if Someone were a scum, then this quick rush of votes to PBug after deadline was announced suggests some mafia involvment to protect one of their own. Interestingly, CA (who figured in my other analysis) also posted around the same time,

defending

Someone, to say:

Bandwagoning is not such a bad thing day one, is it? I mean, as long as it doesn't go all the way to a claim, all the arguments/reactions do some good, doesn't it? Since when does bandwagoning=scum?

I whole-heartedly agree. Neither of our bandwagons went to claims, and both gave us some good information. I don't want to vote out Someone. If it comes between him and PBug, I will vote PBug.

So looking at it that way, leads me back to Someone, and the people quickest to jump for PBug--Rolandofthewhite, MeMe, and TheShadow. I note, however, that MeMe is voting Someone right now

Finally, because this is long, I think I had better clear up one thing that people have mentioned with respect to me, and their suspicious as to where my theories are coming from. Several have said they thought I was trying to set myself up to look better by my speculation that the people who actually attended the Jeepest were less likely to me mafia. That's really not the case, and just to make it perfectly clear--

my role is not a person who attended the Jeepfest

. The point I was making did not apply to me. The point could also be completely and totally wrong, as others have suggested, and I realize that. I was just throwing it out as a possibility, and certainly not trying to set myself up to "look" good.

But now consider RolandofthWhite. He seems to be claiming an information type role, getting names of Roles. Now, if there is no correletion between a person's role and mafianess (because anyone could be mafia, regardless of Role, regardless of whether they were at Jeepfest) then exactly what is the point of that information? That suggests to me that the Role names do mean

something

even if it's not what I'm speculating.

[Axelrod]

Sorry, Nox, didn't see your post in the middle of typing up my last "uber-long" one. Man, I'm tired. Roland is definately on my radar (see above) but I'm not quite ready to vote him yet.

[Nox]

XD It's alright. I really like this last analysis though.

Someone has seemed scummy to me for a while, and well I just posted how I felt about rolandofthewhite. Commodore Amazing definatly joins them in my list of the scummiest as well.

While I dont think that Fuldu is that scummy, I'm still unsure about Meme. Just because she's voting Someone at the moment, doesn't mean she can't be anti-town. Either two mafia families, or an SK?

[Nox]

Is there still the possibility of more than one killing group?

[Fuldu]

But now consider RolandofthWhite. He seems to be claiming an information type role, getting names of Roles. Now, if there is no correletion between a person's role and mafianess (because anyone could be mafia, regardless of Role, regardless of whether they were at Jeepfest) then exactly what is the point of that information? That suggests to me that the Role names do mean something even if it's not what I'm speculating.

Do you really not see any other point? A role-name getting role will have the same value in this game that it would in any other game. It reduces scum's ability to come up with fraudulent claims. If I'm 'mith' and scum, and I'm being bandwagoned and want to claim to divert attention from myself, I have two options. I can claim somebody else entirely, e.g. 'Axelrod' - townie, or I can claim 'mith' and try to come up with a particular pro-town role that goes with that name. But it's generally strategically preferable to decide the role I want to claim and then figure out what name I want to put with it rather than the other way around. If there's the threat that someone already knows my rolename, I might be more inclined to stick with 'mith' and now if I wanted to claim plain vanilla townie, chances are pretty good no one's going to believe me.

[Vesuvan]

Just catching up - I'll post some more examples of what I mean about Axelrod following other peoples' opinions and views a bit when I have some more time.

This recent bit has actually pushed Nox over Axelrod in my books, though I suspect part of this may be my having a very different approach to this game to what Nox appears to have. In brief, I have looked at Roland's play - it was one of the things I did when reviewing the thread - and his playstyle matches one of a player who has an info role that he's not sure of how powerful it is, as well as some other possibilities. It may be a difference of opinion, but I have often found that watching what the person claiming such things does to be more effective than attacking them. I particularly don't find stifling discussion into something other than what you want to focus on to be a good townie play, but it can be an excellent scum one.

Unvote: Axelrod, Vote: Nox

, though I am no less suspicious of Axelrod than I was earlier.

[rolandofthewhite]

Oh wow. Everyone's talking about me.

Well, I guess I sort of made it obvious what my role does now, so I'm going to go ahead and claim. I'm Mackay, a role-name cop. I'm able to get information by making out with the mod (?). I've heard of Mackay, but I don't really know who he is. Anyways... Yeah. I didn't really see a point in not claiming, since I made it pretty clear that I had role-investigative ability.

And for your information, Nox, I'm not on any of the bandwagons, but I am now.

Unvote; Vote: Nox

.

[Nox]

I was referring to all the previous bandwagons.

Well, I can't really keep my vote on at the moment. I'm still suspicious, but not enough to risk lynching a power role.

I have to go to work. I'll come back and post later.

unvote

[rolandofthewhite]

I wasn't on all of the previous bandwagons, either.