Karma Mafia (Game Over!)

[boberz]

I have not really thought about a SK or anything. But Sando could easily be bussing two people at once, because he senses that one will go off the boil when the other flips. It is actually quite a clever thing to do I think.

[Patrick]

Votecount

Shanba (2) -- Jahudo, Albert B. Rampage
Espeonage (1) -- NickF227
NickF227 (1) -- Javert
dybeck (1) -- boberz
Jahudo (2) -- Shanba, Espeonage

Not voting: farside22, dybeck, curiouskarmadog
10 alive, 6 to lynch.

Deadline: June 19th

[dybeck]

OK listen. I made up my mind to do this last night but wanted to get a Faraday claim first.

I am a rolecop, of sorts. I'm not claiming this because I'm particularly worried about the pressure on me, but the fact is that I have two confirmed innocents and I'm concerned that I will die overnight and take the information to the grave with me. I've pushed my luck far enough, I think.

The fact is, though, that both Boberz and Espeonage are confirmed town.

If you read back through my posts, you'll note that I was all-out for a Boberz lynch for the best part of a day, and haven't mentioned him in a negative light since. This is because I investigated him. If you want further evidence, I can give his exact role.

Happy to answer any questions that don't jeopardise the efficacy of my role.

But probably best for you to discuss amongst yourselves first.

[Albert B. Rampage]

vla

[Jahudo]

That's pretty big news. So Shanba, dybeck, Espy and CKD have claimed; and farside is confirmed town; and boberz and Espy are being vouched for. I think we might as well massclaim at this point.

@dybeck: so all your other targets have died? were any nights unsuccessful? Why didn't you say anything after ABR counter-claimed cop? Were you doubting him then, even though I guess there could be a cop and a rolecop in a large together.

[Javert]

1.)

I am not in favor of a mass-claim. There may still be a protective role in the game, and I would rather keep that role concealed. Even if we do not have one, refusing to mass-claim forces the scum to second-guess their nightkill choices.

2.)

dybeck, since you claim you are afraid of being nightkilled, I do not see a reason for you to withhold any other information you have, as well as your night-choices, if you made them. The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight. If you are telling the truth, it might help us better understand the game, and at the very least, be able to better judge Shanba's claim and whether it fits.

I would also like this clarified:

The fact is, though, that both Boberz and Espeonage are confirmed town.

I recently lost a game where Masons claimed their partner was confirmed by the Mod to be Town, and it turned out they were wrong. So please double-check that when you say "confirmed town," you really

mean

confirmed town. I am rather tired of losing games based on stupid mistakes.

[boberz]

My exact role Dybeck?

[curiouskarmadog]

@@@

Javert, I am not sure I understand why you have 3 lynch candidates, but you are not voting them..that doesn’t make since., is he a 4th candidate or not? I am confused.

@@@

[curiouskarmadog]

also,

vote nick

[Shanba]

Jahudo:

I'm not against a bv lynch at this time. There's a valid case that's good for a day 1 lynch, but I think its weaker overall than Richard who does not look like a VI.

The clear implication is that you think the case on him is weak because he's a VI. But nick in particular (and actually richard as well, though he's one of those players who has played a lot in a short period of time) is very new, too. There are a lot of things that were also levelled against bv, such as flip-flopping, which you never addressed.

Yet you attack a similarly new player because he said a vote was weird? You attacked a similarly new player because he got emotional over some pressure and flip-flopped somewhat over a gambit?

[Shanba]

didn't mean to submit, hadn't finished my post, just that idea. Javert, I can't target myself. I don't know any more than I've already stated about malfunctioning roles: all I know is that roles malfunction, I can keep them working, and I can also malfunction if I get greedy.

I'm willing to believe dybeck - at teh very least, I don't think there would be three scum left at this point in time so unless he's gambitting about knowing one of the roles he probably is a role cop. The thing is, role cop is one of those roles that is very often scum, so although I reckon he's telling the truth it doesn't make him clear.

[Jahudo]

The clear implication is that you think the case on him is weak because he's a VI.

Correct.

But nick in particular (and actually richard as well, though he's one of those players who has played a lot in a short period of time) is very new, too.

They didn't display the playstyle that I would call "VI".

There are a lot of things that were also levelled against bv, such as flip-flopping, which you never addressed.

I addressed it in this post. It didn't concern me because I figured he just saw something different after his re-read. I had asked him about it in an earlier post and didn't get bad feeling in his response.

Yet you attack a similarly new player because he said a vote was weird?

Because he had his facts wrong about Richard's stance on farside, not because he was saying something that sounds like something only scum or something with inside information would say (going back to the BV quote I thought was a newb tell). I was pressuring Nick to see if he'd look at it again.

You attacked a similarly new player because he got emotional over some pressure and flip-flopped somewhat over a gambit?

I thought that was a calculated fake-gambit, which doesn't sound like something a VI would do. But you do realize that I had dropped my entire Richard case before I called BV a VI, right?

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

** I earlier said Richard was still a liar, and my case was still valid, but wrong. I have to retract that because I misremembered that part of day 1. It was actually Nick that lied about Richard's voting record (I'm sorry for the defamation Richard!!!), which I think is still a valid point.

Well, I think its pretty clear. Saying that farside looks town in one post and then voting for her in the next post is pretty....well, do I really need to explain this? Its self-explanatory.

So then I said:

His farside vote was in the random vote stage, in post 42. His flop saying farside looked town after his reaction test was in post 309. So I'll ask again, why the vote on farside weird?

I'd be more on board of a Nick wagon if his BV vote looked more like a bus. Its though because he gave the wagon momentum but he also wasn't happy about switching from Richard to BV. Like he didn't want to take credit for the BV lynch.

[Javert]

1.)

Javert, I am not sure I understand why you have 3 lynch candidates, but you are not voting them..that doesn’t make since., is he a 4th candidate or not? I am confused.

If you are referring to section #1 of Post 1962, I was simply ranking the three players Jahudo asked me to rank.

2.)

dybeck, suppose you had investigated Sando. What would your result have been? "Mafia Goon"? "Mafia"? "Goon"?

How would this result be any different between your Strong and your Weak mode? Should your role could catch a Godfather, since you do not technically investigate for "guilt," but rather the role?

3.)

Request in general: Can anybody link to other games that involved Boosters / Motivators or Rolecops, or fake-claims of either of those roles?

[dybeck]

My exact role Dybeck?

You're a vanilla villager.

That's pretty big news. So Shanba, dybeck, Espy and CKD have claimed; and farside is confirmed town; and boberz and Espy are being vouched for. I think we might as well massclaim at this point.

A massclaim wouldn't be the end of the world as far as my role is concerned - but definitely not today.

@dybeck: so all your other targets have died? were any nights unsuccessful?

I'd rather not talk about other nights in too much depth. But no nights on which I've taken action have been entirely unsuccessful.

Why didn't you say anything after ABR counter-claimed cop? Were you doubting him then, even though I guess there could be a cop and a rolecop in a large together.

The most likely explanation for ABR's claim seemed to be that he was a genuine cop. I don't see why there wouldn't be one.

dybeck, since you claim you are afraid of being nightkilled, I do not see a reason for you to withhold any other information you have, as well as your night-choices, if you made them.

Well, you don't know what my role is, exactly. So you're not really qualified to make that call. You've completely passed me by this game, I have to admit. But you, sir, are fishing.

The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight.

I disagree. If I die overnight, Boberz and Espeonage are rock-solid confirmed.

If you are telling the truth, it might help us better understand the game, and at the very least, be able to better judge Shanba's claim and whether it fits.

I'll get to it. But not today. If I die overnight, you get the full picture. If I don't, maybe I'll tell you tomorrow. But, like I said, fishing.

I would also like this clarified:

dybeck, Post 1977 wrote:
The fact is, though, that both Boberz and Espeonage are confirmed town.

I recently lost a game where Masons claimed their partner was confirmed by the Mod to be Town, and it turned out they were wrong. So please double-check that when you say "confirmed town," you really mean confirmed town. I am rather tired of losing games based on stupid mistakes.

As far as I'm concerned, rock-solid confirmed.

dybeck, suppose you had investigated Sando. What would your result have been? "Mafia Goon"? "Mafia"? "Goon"?

How would this result be any different between your Strong and your Weak mode? Should your role could catch a Godfather, since you do not technically investigate for "guilt," but rather the role?

And more fishing? Are you for real? Why have I not noticed you all game?

[boberz]

Dybeck, did Patrick use the word vanilla?

[boberz]

Also scum can have investigative roles as well.

[Javert]

Hi, dybeck.

I have problems with your claim. When I have problems with a claim, I ask questions. I am even more likely to ask questions when the player in question says they are "happy" to answer questions.

I personally think it is naive to withhold information from the Town if you are Town once you've claimed the bulk of your information. There is really nothing to gain by withholding information, especially if you die. But it is an excellent tactic for scum to dangle partial information.

I have partial-claimed as scum in a mini game fairly recently when I was under practically no pressure at all. I started off claiming to be a "Watcher or a Tracker" with a near-damning result. The next game Day, I claimed to be a "Tracker variant" -- and even then, I left my claim purposefully ambiguous so that one of my scum-partners could potentially claim a power role in a way that "fit" my role exceptionally well. My claim pretty much sealed the win for my mafia group.

The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight.

I disagree. If I die overnight, Boberz and Espeonage are rock-solid confirmed.

Don't play with semantics -- obviously if you are telling the truth, confirming two players to be town is quite efficient. That is an asinine point. If you are telling the truth, then this is true regardless of whether or not you explain your role.

But the real question here is whether revealing the

rest

of your claim is "efficacious." If you die, obviously the "efficacy" of withholding the rest of your information is zero, which is the point I was making.

If you are going to partially claim a role, then in my opinion, you should just claim the whole damned role.

[Espeonage]

Question: Would a hider die if they hid with a third party role?

[dybeck]

Hi, dybeck.

I have problems with your claim. When I have problems with a claim, I ask questions. I am even more likely to ask questions when the player in question says they are "happy" to answer questions.

I personally think it is naive to withhold information from the Town if you are Town once you've claimed the bulk of your information. There is really nothing to gain by withholding information, especially if you die. But it is an excellent tactic for scum to dangle partial information.

I have partial-claimed as scum in a mini game fairly recently when I was under practically no pressure at all. I started off claiming to be a "Watcher or a Tracker" with a near-damning result. The next game Day, I claimed to be a "Tracker variant" -- and even then, I left my claim purposefully ambiguous so that one of my scum-partners could potentially claim a power role in a way that "fit" my role exceptionally well. My claim pretty much sealed the win for my mafia group.

The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight.

I disagree. If I die overnight, Boberz and Espeonage are rock-solid confirmed.

Don't play with semantics -- obviously if you are telling the truth, confirming two players to be town is quite efficient. That is an asinine point. If you are telling the truth, then this is true regardless of whether or not you explain your role.

But the real question here is whether revealing the

rest

of your claim is "efficacious." If you die, obviously the "efficacy" of withholding the rest of your information is zero, which is the point I was making.

If you are going to partially claim a role, then in my opinion, you should just claim the whole damned role.

Gosh darn... well if it's naive and scummy of me then i should make sure I tell you everything as soon as possible!

Don't think for a second that you can insult or scare me into revealing information that helps scum. Such tactics might work on newbies, but not on me.

vote: Javert

[Shanba]

I agree with javert. What is the rest of your information? If you were so afraid of dying that you had to claim, why are you now so blase about dying that you don't mind taking this info to the grave? As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the meantime.

That's pretty big news. So Shanba, dybeck, Espy and CKD have claimed; and farside is confirmed town; and boberz and Espy are being vouched for. I think we might as well massclaim at this point.

I agree, though the fact that most of the unclaimed are cleared or semi-cleared puts a dampener on my enthusiasm.


Ok all this flipping through ancient pages is frustrating: Jahudo, is this an accurate summary of your beliefs on all 3 players we're discussing?

Nick: Made a post in which he made a lot of weak stances and called a vote weird that you don't think is weird (Nick accused him of voting then calling a player town in his next post, when in reality the vote was the rvs and calling the player town was 250 posts later).

Additional info - nick was lurky that first day, but I don't think anyone called him on it.

Everything about that reads VI to me. Even if he were scum, that would be poor play - just basic not doing the research. Besides which he's obviously a new player, his join date being the 15th of march and his title only just having moved now from townsperson to goon (yeah, I know, alts and all that - does anyone seriously think nick is an alt?). I don't understand why Nick did not get one of your VI passes.

bv: flip-flopped on his stance in a few posts and was also later accused of lurking by farside. He votes for richard when under pressure to do so (here's that exchange). But he's probably just a VI so that's ok.

You pressured bv for a response and you were satisfied with that response. But the thing is, the very fact that he was able to justify his actions should surely have indicated that he had some degree of comepetence. In fact, he was the most experienced of all the players we're discussing. Yet you were willing to give him a pass. I don't get it.

Richard: Flip-flopped over a gambit he may not have done. Got seriously worked up under pressure over said incident.

So what about this doesn't look newbish or VIish (I know the two words aren't interchangeable, but the reactions from both camps are fairly similar)? Even if he's scum, this is clearly awful play. Yet you thought it was scummy. I will admit, you eventually gave him a pass.

None of this makes sense to me unless you were scum selectively applying the label for your own reasons - that is, to give you an excuse not to be on the bv wagon. I think this

They didn't display the playstyle that I would call "VI".

is clearly bunkum - indeed, the rvs ended when someone tried to policy lynch richard!

Because he had his facts wrong about Richard's stance on farside, not because he was saying something that sounds like something only scum or something with inside information would say (going back to the BV quote I thought was a newb tell). I was pressuring Nick to see if he'd look at it again.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that to me, that kind of carelessness is obviously a newbtell

That wasn't actually what set you off about him initially: it was his "weak" stances on Ricky. You specifically pick out this case as being good and then develop it later to attack his stance on Farside/Richard

[curiouskarmadog]

shanba > Faraday

[farside22]

Questions to dybeck:

What is the downfall (weak mod) of your role? What night did you check Esp and bobz? Why did you decide now to claim?

[Javert]

1.)

Don't think for a second that you can insult or scare me into revealing information that helps scum. Such tactics might work on newbies, but not on me.

Perhaps you have not noticed this, but I have a tendency of questioning claims. I questioned Pomegranate's claim, I questioned Shanba's claim, and I would have questioned Sando's claim if I had been able to post before he was hammered.

farside22 just asked pretty much the exact same questions I just asked -- how is your Weak and Strong mode different (i.e. do you get different results on the same roles?) and what nights did you get your information?

To judge your claim effectively at all, we need to know when you found out that boberz was Town, and when you found out that Espeonage was Town. Claiming your other two results (and more particularly, who you targeted) also lets us judge whether your actions at night make sense with the way you have played the game. For example, your posts imply that you have not investigated Shanba/Faraday or Albert B. Rampage (or that you do not have a useful result on them, at least). But it seems strange that you would investigate boberz (one of your top suspects from Day One) and not Faraday/Shanba (another one of your top suspects from Day One, who you have been consistently voting since Day Two).

So in addition to my questions (which Shanba has echoed) and farside22's questions, please answer boberz's question from Post 1989.

2.)

Question: Would a hider die if they hid with a third party role?

My guess is that it would depend on what kind of Third Party role you are talking about. I doubt a Hider would die behind a Jester or Lyncher, but it might die behind a Serial Killer or Cult Leader. I imagine the answer to this changes as the Mod changes, or as balance requires.

[dybeck]

@Javert: I have no interest in you evaluating my claim. I'm telling you that giving away more information will not be good for the town. If you think you can build a wagon on me, then go ahead. I will spill all, and you'll see exactly why it was a bad idea all along.

Dybeck: Action X is bad for the town.
Javert: I propose we do action X!

Really?

I claim now not because I want to defend myself. I claim now because Espeonage and Boberz are town, and if I died tonight without spilling this, I would have felt pretty silly.

[Jahudo]

Ok no massclaim. And I don't really mind that dybeck wants to withhold information. I don't consider him a suspect and would rather focus on lynching one of my suspects (Shanba preferably, or Nick compromise).

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

Shanba, have you explained yet how my vote on Richard / no vote on BV is worse than Faraday's vote / no vote?

Ok all this flipping through ancient pages is frustrating: Jahudo, is this an accurate summary of your beliefs on all 3 players we're discussing?

Nick: Made a post in which he made a lot of weak stances and called a vote weird that you don't think is weird (Nick accused him of voting then calling a player town in his next post, when in reality the vote was the rvs and calling the player town was 250 posts later).

Additional info - nick was lurky that first day, but I don't think anyone called him on it.

Everything about that reads VI to me. Even if he were scum, that would be poor play - just basic not doing the research. Besides which he's obviously a new player, his join date being the 15th of march and his title only just having moved now from townsperson to goon (yeah, I know, alts and all that - does anyone seriously think nick is an alt?). I don't understand why Nick did not get one of your VI passes.

Yeah that's a good description of the event. But apparently it would be a good scum play since I'm the only one who ever wanted to talk about it.

I don't see what his newness has to do with whether he's a VI or not? I would still consider zwetschenwasser a VI (if he still played) and he has thousands of posts. Its all about the language they put forth. And I'm arguing that Nick was aware of the truth and he tried to tell a lie anyway in order to validate his Richard vote.

bv: flip-flopped on his stance in a few posts and was also later accused of lurking by farside. He votes for richard when under pressure to do so (here's that exchange). But he's probably just a VI so that's ok.

You pressured bv for a response and you were satisfied with that response. But the thing is, the very fact that he was able to justify his actions should surely have indicated that he had some degree of comepetence. In fact, he was the most experienced of all the players we're discussing. Yet you were willing to give him a pass. I don't get it.

I haven't been arguing that being a VI has anything to do with lack of competence. Maybe I should call it something different since we apparently have fundamental disagreements on the term. I'll call BV the "Double entendre machine".

I felt the words he produced were open to interpretation because he didn't know how to express his own intention. He was the only player in this game to make these posts. Example 1 was the comment on Zito being a vig, who he said would be a "valuable townie" to lose. (obviously this was a scumslip but I didn't consider that on day 1). Before he clarified this post I thought he could have been talking about the worst case scenario or his own opinion of Zito. And neither were clearer than the other because of the wording of his statement.

Example 2 was saying he was a "magnet to VT roles", (which I guess was a soft-fakeclaim?). He could have been trying to say all his past games were VT or none of his past games were scum, which was the essence of the question he was posed (link to any past scum games).

Richard: Flip-flopped over a gambit he may not have done. Got seriously worked up under pressure over said incident.

So what about this doesn't look newbish or VIish (I know the two words aren't interchangeable, but the reactions from both camps are fairly similar)? Even if he's scum, this is clearly awful play. Yet you thought it was scummy. I will admit, you eventually gave him a pass.

The reason why Richard's gambit couldn't be misinterpreted is because he explained it so simply that it didn't need clarification: He got upset for reactions. If this was a fake gambit (even if he was faking as town) that would be risky play that backfired and nothing more. I don't see any connection between this and his lack of experience, other than the fact that he is new.

None of this makes sense to me unless you were scum selectively applying the label for your own reasons - that is, to give you an excuse not to be on the bv wagon.

I was upfront from the start in how I defined VI. Someone asked what VI meant, and I replied by saying BV was a VI because his writing could be read differently than he intended.

But I feel that the basis for your argument is that regardless of whether or not this tell was valid, and whether or not it could be applied to other people, I am a suspect because I did not help to lynch BV. And that last point is and always has been a valid point on me. And on you too.

Except that by your own narrative, and my recent case, Faraday's presence on Richard was scummier than mine was. He tried to turn it into a policy lynch. He used weak reasoning while not having a good reasoning to stay away from the BV wagon. Faraday also called BV a VI, but he didn't try to discount Richard or others as a VI so his lack of a BV vote doesn't make as much sense as my lack of a BV vote.