Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[DeathSauce]

Five duplicate posts removed at DeathSauce's request

--MeMe

[Netopalis]

AAAAAAAHHHHH! THE WALLS! THE WALLS!!!!! THEY'RE MULTIPLYING!!!!!!

[DeathSauce]

uhh, yeah. Sorry about that.

Fuzzyman, explain immediately and clearly exactly what I am lying about, since that is your sole stated reason for your current vote.

[Sanhora]

@Kik
Let's look again towards the questions I asked about your suspicions:
It first started with that if you were done reading that I wanted to hear who you thought were scummy. You responded to that by saying that you had stated your suspects D1. As you never mentioned any specific names, except for Josh, and gave at most vague reasons if any were given, I asked who those suspects were with reasons. It's only then that you call me a hypocrite, while that's not true. I was already posting my suspicions, while you were still avoiding to name those suspects with reasons. And you're still doing so.
As shown now, there is a difference between us. My analysis has been posted. I only want to look at two players again in this game and I want to look at some past games.
So I try it again, who were your suspicions yesterday in the pages you have read and why?
Also, you are evading. That is in my opinion. When I read your opinion, you state that you're with-helding information on purpose. Both are scummy.
But to be nice in case you forgot, my pressure vote isn't a pressure vote anymore as I have said earlier.

You state that you aren't using Josh's flaking against me in the post I'm analysing now (Post 691). But that's not the impression I get from this quote:

Not sure what you mean by "follow the crowd", but accusing me of being "absent" near deadline was explained. Further, your slot dissappeared under pressure after a questionable claim where he gave contradictory explanations. Why are your suspicions somehow "founded" and mine are not?

I mentioned your absent around deadline. Then you state that Josh left after pressure was put on him. In your last sentence, you mention 'your suspions'. If this isn't about Josh's flaking, then what's it about? Because I see nothing else that you could be talking about.

As for the evidence. May I post the games in which that wasn't the case? Because that way, I can post way less links than if I had to link to each game in which the scum let the scummy looking town players left alive. Haven't you noticed this in your games?

Please rephrase. I don't understand what you are saying.

You wanted me to show evidence that scum don't kill players about whom was stated that others would look into them the next day. So I ask in the above quote if I may link to games where this did happen as it happens in a lot of mafia games that linking to games where this didn't happen will contain much lesser links.
As for the rethorical question, haven't you noticed in your games that players who will get looked at during D2 survive N1?

And you still haven't used the scenario I am constantly describing why I didn't use my ability.


@SB
Thanks for noting that I referred to the wrong post number. I wanted you to respond to post 679.
And no. If you think that the reasons you're using is bad, you don't use them. Only scum do that. As for you saying that I'm twisting your words, let's look at your quotes:

Trying to link a player with another is weak and bad scumhunting.

I was suspicious of Imag based on a link with Mac

What's the difference according to you?

First of all, I'm a slow analyser as English isn't my main language. So looking at multiple games of yours won't take a couple of minutes, but a lot more.
As you're now stating that you've played only one game as scum (Though it seems you've been 3rd party once as well. Want that one as well), it shouldn't be hard to name that one, now should it? Because me having to look through all your finished games and ongoing games will take more time then you just mentioning it.
Also, my thought process when I look at a post:
-Look at avatar/username to see who wrote it.
-Look at content.
-Analysis it if needed.
-(If sig), See short black like. End of post. Continue with the next one.
In other words, I don't look at sigs.


@Fuzzy

In general, the advancement of mafia theory creates more ways for townies to optimize their play than for scum to optimize their play.

How? And how does a no-lynch random vote cause advancement of mafia theory?
Also, can't you discuss stuff like this at MD instead?

As for post 162, I saw it as reason for you keeping your vote on Josh. But as that is not the case, then what was?
Also, you may still answer the question though: 'About post 162, I'd like to know what scumhunting you've done up until this point according to you.'

I have no reason what you're saying in your response to my comment about post 227. So I'll just repeat it again.
You didn't like how imaginality dropped his 'suspicions' of Jason, while it was just a lurker vote. On the other hand, you didn't like how he stiffled the Josh role discussion (And looking back at your posts, it was not like you were still discussing it. So why do you condemn him for it?) So in my opinion, you would have thought imaginality to be suspicious. Either he kept going with his Jason suspicions you thought he had, stiffling the Josh role discussion even further. Or he had stopped them, which was FoS worthy to you.

About my comment about post 462, your comment make it even worse. You state in that comment that there's no point in repeating what others have said to defend yourself. But post 438, the post you direct to in post 462, is about CM. So what defence are you talking about?

PBPA is an easy way to make somebody look scummy. So yeah, they are scummy to me.
But anyway, thanks for stating that you saw who were in the vote count. This reinforces my statement about post 611. That you did know about the VC around deadline.


@DS
Seems I wasn't paying attention. I thought that he got the impression that the player who gets stumped can still be killed from his role PM. I didn't know that he had checked this with the mod. Will check myself to see what's truely the case now.

[kikuchiyo]

I mentioned your absent around deadline. Then you state that Josh left after pressure was put on him. In your last sentence, you mention 'your suspions'. If this isn't about Josh's flaking, then what's it about? Because I see nothing else that you could be talking about.

My point is: People were suspicious of your slot for JL's dissappearance under pressure. I clearly did not use that against you. You, on the other hand, use my absence at deadline as a foundation for your "suspicion" of me. If you use my absence against me, then players using JL's absence against you are founded(both absences were site wide). You can't have it both ways.

I feel like you are twisting my words. Your above post does not at all represent my position as far as I can tell and I don't understand half of what you are asking. I will post my thoughts when I have them. I already stated where I wanted to start with my investigations. I don't "take notes", so it is difficult for me to travel back in time and explain my thought process. Just because I was suspicious of someone yesterday, doesn't necessarily mean I am suspicious of them today. The lynch flip, night actions, and night kill all affect the scumhunting process. I am currently looking into the players who buddied you from yesterday. In order to do that, I need time to reread and gather my thoughts cohesively. Engaging with you in senseless debate about rhetorical questions and your assumptions is only distracting me. If you want scumhunting from me, you will have to wait. I am not ready at this time to post my suspicions other than the general information I released in my earlier post. If you want to know who I was suspicious of yesterday, read my posts from yesterday. If you are not satisfied, I cannot help you at this time. I don't see anything wrong with the way I am doing things.

[Sanhora]

Your abscense wasn't foundation for my suspicion. It was a reason why I wanted to hear from you. Because the opinions you did give were vague or there were no reasons given. And even now, you can't state them. Seems to me a classic case of scum trying to fit in with their suspicions.
Also, Josh's absence was sitewide. You on the other hand:

I have been involved in a couple other games in which I was current and just couldn't find a block of time to catch up.

Yeah, it really was sitewide.
And last about the first paragraph, you state this:

Not sure what you mean by "follow the crowd", but accusing me of being "absent" near deadline was explained. Further, your slot dissappeared under pressure after a questionable claim where he gave contradictory explanations. Why are your suspicions somehow "founded" and

mine

are not?

So stop changing to 'people' or 'other players'.

And yes, I'm not 'satisfied' with looking at your suspicions yesterday as it's vague or non-existant.

[imaginality]

I've caught up with the thread now, and I'm writing up my thoughts. I feel strongly about a number of players being clearly pro-town. No-one screams obvscum to me but I do have suspects, and will address that next post.


Sanhora, here are my three most recent completed games as town (not counting one I replaced into, since I assume it's D1 play you're most interested in at the moment):

Return to Smalltown Y

Mini 839[/quote]

Congratulations! You are...

As scum, I've only been scum twice:

Caught in the Crossfire

Killer in Smalltown Y

Hope that helps.

[imaginality]

Let's try that again:

Return to Smalltown Y
Mini 839
Congratulations! You are...Mafia

[kikuchiyo]

Sanhora: I think you and I are talking about two different things. In reference to the "absence" conversation I was referring to my absence at the end of the day when I had troubles logging on.

You have completely lost me. At this point I can only ignore you as you seem to have convinced yourself of something and are unwilling to engage in any worthwhile discussion. When I post my analysis, you can talk with me again. You say my posts were "vague", but you haven't produced any evidence in that direction. You just continue to talk.

[Snow_Bunny]

@SB
Thanks for noting that I referred to the wrong post number. I wanted you to respond to post 679.
And no. If you think that the reasons you're using is bad, you don't use them. Only scum do that. As for you saying that I'm twisting your words, let's look at your quotes:

Trying to link a player with another is weak and bad scumhunting.

I was suspicious of Imag based on a link with Mac

What's the difference according to you?

First of all, I'm a slow analyser as English isn't my main language. So looking at multiple games of yours won't take a couple of minutes, but a lot more.
As you're now stating that you've played only one game as scum (Though it seems you've been 3rd party once as well. Want that one as well), it shouldn't be hard to name that one, now should it? Because me having to look through all your finished games and ongoing games will take more time then you just mentioning it.
Also, my thought process when I look at a post:
-Look at avatar/username to see who wrote it.
-Look at content.
-Analysis it if needed.
-(If sig), See short black like. End of post. Continue with the next one.
In other words, I don't look at sigs.

On the first point about the link between two players, let me elaborate further on it. I find it weak if player A creates a link with player B and then A turns up scum. With Imag and Mac, it was more of a A has a link with B, and B has a link with A. Did you see the difference? One is one-way, the other is two ways. It's easy for scum to buddy to one player, regardless of alignment, and thus why I find that weak. But if two players bud between themselves, it's a whole different story, and should one of them turn up scum, then it's a scumtell for the other. See the point?

On the other point, damn it, aren't you annoying? Instead of wasting your time asking me, you could have as well used that time to find the games. Ok, I'll tell you, just because I'm on the mood for it.

Third party:
Legacy of Ancient Mafia

Scum:
Open 172 - Mini Love

Town:
Mini 849 - Return to Smalltown Y
Mini 867- TTGL Mafia
Newbie #840

There, enjoy.

[Sanhora]

Have to go soon, so a short post before I leave in case SB gets online before I'm back:
As stated before, you deserve first place off evading explanations. Post 679 is still waiting for you and as stated there, requires immediatly attention, which it obviously isn't getting from you.

[Snow_Bunny]

@SB
I don't follow something. Both Netopalis and FM have asked for the second mason claim. That's why you think they are scummy, not? So why does Neto get your vote, when you asked FM to die already after he made a no-lynch vote?
I want to hear your FM case and Neto case and why you choose Neto over FM, right now.

Asking for a mason claim is only part of why I find them scummy. It's true that I became suspicious of Net after the mason-claim thingy, but more suspicious added with time. With Fuzzy there's the no-lynch thing, and yes, I've asked him to die already, but to be honest, there could be pro-town reasons for him voting for a no-lynch, as he explained. And thus, the chain of suspicious go Net > Fuzzy. That being said, I won't get mad if either of them gets lynched today, though I prefer Net over Fuzzy.

Now, I don't follow you as well, What's exactly the problem in me voting for Net and not Fuzzy?

[DeathSauce]

Just posting to let you know I'm still here and am disappointed in the lack of Fuzzy votes.

Also, Fuzzy, anytime you'd like to join in and tell everyone what I am lying about, we are all waiting patiently. I'm assuming you haven't posted in days because you're still trying to find something.

[Fuzzyman]

Vote:Fuzzyman

Mostly for repeatedly calling me a liar about my vote on dana, even though I clearly posted my reasons in my iso post 2. In addition, Fuzzy's iso post 38 is a half-assed PBPA that is chock full of smarmy mischaracterizations of my posts.

Yeah, it's a little OMGUS, but Lynch All Liars is sound gameplay.

Hey, if you think LAL is good, then I'm sure you'll understand when I...

Vote: DeathSauce

.

You had said that you "disliked" dana's entrance. "dislike"=/="think it's scummy". Besides, dana has given her reason (if fairly weak) for her vote now. It would also be nice to see you actually tell the world how my attacks on you have been "mischaracterizing".

How do you know that "dislike" doesn't equal "think it's scummy"? Can you read my mind? Also, dana is no longer in the game, please pay attention.

In my experience, those two terms have had somewhat differing meanings. I don't feel that I implied dana was still here.

I really don't need to explain how your PBPA attack post was"mischaracterizing" (I put it in quotes because I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.) Anyone reading it can see you were reaching, but for your edification, let's take a look.

I do have a bit of a case; the player that I think has been most overlooked in this game is DeathSauce. Let's look at some of his slips over the game...

~ Iso Post 8 ~ One-liner votes for danakillsu without previous accusation of him.

False, see my iso post 2 which you commented on above. Do you now admit you were lying about this?

Of course not.

~ Iso Post 9, 10, 11 ~ Goes 1984 on me when I note the above.

I have no idea what "goes 1984" means, but you were repeatedly lying about my vote and it's reasons, just becuse you skimmed over a portion of one of my posts, even going so far as to call something I wrote a "blatant lie", did you not expect me to respond to that?

You tried to get me to believe (and still are trying) that you had made statements which you didn't. I sorta had trouble finding good words.

~ Iso Post 16 ~ Claims that not hammering is townish (certainly something scum would have us believe)

Mischaracterization. In some cases, a certain player choosing not to hammer can be seen as a pro-town action . In no way did I imply or infer or state that this is an absolute rule.

You didn't really say one way or the other. I guess you're okay for now on this, though.

~ Iso Post 21 ~ Is a part of the BC wagon (though not voting for it), which is largely based on a grammar messup causing miscommunication

Mischaracterization. I stated I would support a BC wagon. I didn't vote for BC because as soon as I said that, my two biggest scum targets jumped onto that wagon and I am hardly likely to follow their votes. Secondly, in what fucking way is a slip about having two scum in the game a "grammar messup"?

In the way that he was speaking in the same breath of a scenario in which one of the likely three scum was lynched, leaving two.

~ Iso Post 25 ~ Calls the quoted post scummy, but I really don't see it and I doubt others do; needs to explain.

You doubt others do, huh? again, your reading comprehension skills are showing. Read others reactions to what I wrote and see if your "doubt" continues.

Please don't make this personal. Also, I take it you refer to reactions such as this, this, and this?

~ Iso Post 0 ~ Admits to only skimming the thread (certainly not something town would find benefit in doing)

Total BS mischaracterization. I had JUST REPLACED into the thread! I posted to let everyone know I was here, not to provide you with an enormous in-depth analysis. This one ticks me off more than any other of your underhanded nonsense.

"I am reading" would have sufficed.

Congratulations, you have now forced me to post the longest damned post I have done on this site in years. I fucking hate long posts. Die scum!

Mastin is scum no more or less than others...

[Faraday]

Adressing some of the fuzzyman stuff afore I go to Uni.

In general, the advancement of mafia theory creates more ways for townies to optimize their play than for scum to optimize their play.

This sounds bullshit to me, sorry I don't buy it at all.

You think that ''I think that multiple players are scummy, but this one has support from a different player, so vote'' is a null tell. I think it's a form of bandwagoning.

Bandwagoning is scummy? Why? If people only voted their top suspect we'd end with a lot more no lynches.

It's scummy to unvote when you're at that moment voting NL? I've not heard that one before. Also, you don't seem to be getting the idea of the NL vote. Things other than the vote itself could be examined leading to meaningful discussion. The reactions to the vote for instance, such as that I am examining this instant.

It's scummy the way you did it, I think. Like you were going to try to do it to look town but got cold feet and quickly unvoted. I perfectly get the idea of the NL vote (I also generally think it's a bad idea to do things for reactions, but eh that's beside the point). If you wanted to examine those things so much surely you should have stayed on NL a lot longer?

- Goes from saying he doesn’t like the Josh wagon as anti-town =/= scummy (Josh was doing what anti-town things as opposed to scummy things btw?) from jumping on it b/c Josh refuses to discuss mafia theory. Theory speculation can generally distract from scum-hunting in a game and ‘I’m not a fan of avoiding things simply because I’m bad at them- scum do that to avoid tripping up’ is a bs argument when it comes to theory as most people even as scum don’t lie about theory as they’ll be easily caught out.

My impression of Budja was that his opinion (and consequentially his vote) was being influenced by others' votes, which is bad and scummy. I still think this was the case.

I don't think it's either. If someone makes a well outlined case is agreeing with them scummy?

The tediousness of actions should not influence decisions on whether or not to do them, at least in mafia.

Riiiiight.


And Mastin is worse than scum in every game! Or was? IDK I'm sure if he ever plays again he'll improve.

I'm finding myself with not much time this week, classes are busy w/ work and stuff and my other two games are much more pressing with deadlines than this, expect me to be able to devote my full time to this soon though.

I want to read the sanhora/kiku back and forth as it's slightly going over my head atm, as there seems to be a lot of wall posting going on. I'll try to cut that down as well as it's generally not how I like playing, I find it suboptimal.

[imaginality]

Short and sweet:

Town or prob town: me, Faraday, Snow_Buddy, Chinaman, BloodCovenant

In between: Sanhora, Netopalis

Others: DeathSauce, Fuzzyman, kikuchiyo

Pretty sure at least one of DeathSauce and Fuzzyman is scum.

Vote: Fuzzyman

[ortolan]

Twenty fourth vote count

Fuzzyman (3): Faraday, DeathSauce, imaginality
kikuchiyo (1): Sanhora
imaginality (1): Chinaman
Netopalis (1): Snow_Bunny
DeathSauce (1): Fuzzyman

Not voting (5): Netopalis, BloodCovenent, kikuchiyo

6 to lynch. Deadline: Tuesday 9th February.

[kikuchiyo]

I have games in night phase, so I should be able to get something together here this week. A little bit to reread, and some to organize.

[Chinaman]

I am also still here but very busy atm. will post soon I hope. Will also get with BC and prove we have daytalk, though I admit it won't prove us town, it's at least something.

[Sanhora]

@SB
I don't follow something. Both Netopalis and FM have asked for the second mason claim. That's why you think they are scummy, not? So why does Neto get your vote, when you asked FM to die already after he made a no-lynch vote?
I want to hear your FM case and Neto case and why you choose Neto over FM, right now.

Asking for a mason claim is only part of why I find them scummy. It's true that I became suspicious of Net after the mason-claim thingy, but more suspicious added with time. With Fuzzy there's the no-lynch thing, and yes, I've asked him to die already, but to be honest, there could be pro-town reasons for him voting for a no-lynch, as he explained. And thus, the chain of suspicious go Net > Fuzzy. That being said, I won't get mad if either of them gets lynched today, though I prefer Net over Fuzzy.

Now, I don't follow you as well, What's exactly the problem in me voting for Net and not Fuzzy?

So when I ask for a Neto case from you, I get the mason-claim thingy and that suspicion added with time? Due to this, I'll ask for a detailed Neto case.
As for your statement in this quote about Fuzzy's no-lynch vote, shall we look at what was written?
Fuzzy votes for a no-lynch in his first post. In his third post, he gives his reason for doing so (I assume that's the pro-town reason you're mentioning in the above quote). This post was written by Fuzzy the 5th of december at almost 7 AM my time.
You were still discussing how scummy this was from Fuzzy after this. Only after a discussion with ML, you got a slight change of heart:
"You can believe that, but I'm not 100% sure. I say no-lynch votes are bad almost always, you say that there's no problem with that one."

And even then, it's still bad to you. Wanna try again?

My problem is that I see you voting Neto, while from reading your posts I get the impression that you think Fuzzy is scummier.


As of now, I'm mostly waiting for two specific players to post.
The posts that need to be analysed will get some attention this weekend.

[Snow_Bunny]

Really, all of that seems like a very weak and obvious way to defend Net. I don't have a case against him, but, why do I need one? It's like if you are trying to find a way to go for Net and have a safe cushion where to fall should suspicious fall on you.

From all of this I've gotten more suspicious of you.

FoS: San

[Netopalis]

I've been putting off making a huge post since I was hoping the site would improve, but since it's not...Working on a post now.

[Netopalis]

Players I think are potentially scum:
Snow_Bunny
Sanhora
Kikuchiyo
Faraday

Reasoning:
Snow_Bunny:
This may be a reaction to play style, but I don't think so. Early on, she states that she's going to pursue her target until lynched, no holds barred. To me, this is incredibly scummy. Meta is no excuse for anti-town actions, and relentlessness to the point of absurdity is particularly awful. This is especially bad given that her target is one that she picked in her 9th post, based on absolutely no stated reasoning. In fact, most of her arguments can be summed up by simply saying "Moar votes, plz." That's not how you play Mafia, unless you are indeed Mafia. If you ARE mafia, it's an incredibly useful tactic, given that it reduces the amount of information going to the town.

Additionally, in her 46th post, she states that she doesn't find links to be a strong tell. Compare to 44 in which she uses a link to justify a vote.

Further, there's the whole "Net Scum Claim" thing that was so absolutely ridiculous. She claims that I claimed scum, without explaining why, how or where. I think she was referring to my asking about the masonry...but as others have said, that is a perfectly logical request given certain circumstances.

Finally, she utterly fails in her posts today. She claims the supposed link between myself and fuzzy as a justification for voting for me (despite her earlier statement that it's not a strong tell) and states that Fuzzy's no lynch points to

my

guilt. Illogical, irrelevant and clearly an attempt to lynch one of the more active players for little-to-no reason at all.

Sanhora:
Not so worried about the role stuff, but I am a bit more concerned with her posting style today. It seems as if she gave the game a very light read before posting, without going more heavily into the justifications for the attacks on Lyman. To me, this is scummy - I find that scum often go light on the early game reads because they feel that it's not important. It's a minor tell, though. Her posting isn't the greatest, but that alone is insufficient for a lynch.

Kikuchiyo:
Insert standard lurkerscum/hiding in plain sight argument here. His play is consistent with the profile and makes little sense from any other perspective.

Faraday:
This is more of a meta read, but Faraday seems to be much, much less useful in this game than she usually is. I'm not really ready to commit to her being scum, but I could definitely see it. There are some players who are just weaker when they play as scum....

Unvote, vote: Snow_bunny

[Snow_Bunny]

Mod: I'm moving to a new house, and thus I'm LA until new advice. I'll at least try to keep up.

[imaginality]

I'm travelling at the moment. Will be non-VLA from Tuesday, but will try to make at least some short posts in the meanwhile too.

Netopalis, I see Fuzzyman and DeathSauce aren't in your potential-scum list, do you have pro-town reads on them? If so, what's the basis for that?

Of the others you list I'd join a kiku wagon.