Mini 1070 The Godfather:Hunt for Sollozzo (GAME!)

[pacman281292]

/conform.

[pacman281292]

"mature"... lol. Considering what kids have nowadays... What used to be "18+" is like "9+" now.

This. TOTALLY.
I've not seen the films/novels, but passing on a Mafia game whose theme is what inspired the game of Mafia is a sin.

[pacman281292]

I just realized:

Welcome to

Little Italy

, New York, America.

Since when do we play mini themes in the mini normal forum?

[pacman281292]

AAAH ME NEEDS RANDOM VOTE

Vote: StrangerCoug

because he's the only player I remember from 2008-9.

[pacman281292]

Unvote, Vote: bv310

for bandwagoning.
And for being the mod of Hydra Mafia.

[pacman281292]

Unvote, Vote: bv310 for bandwagoning.
And for being the mod of Hydra Mafia.

And I didn't get your vote because...?

you aren't the mod of Hydra Mafia.
To get my second random vote you must:
1) Bandwagon other player.
2) Be the Mod of Hydra Mafia.
bv130 is the only one who fulfills both.

[pacman281292]

Unvote: RedCoyote
Vote: pacman281292

His explanation screams "this is a random vote, please pay no attention to it'

But he unvoted a random vote in order to make it.
That suggests that the second vote isn't really random.
But his answer suggests he wants me to believe it is.
He wants me to believe something that isn't true.
Wagon of win, welcome to the game.

*head asplodes*
This is a circular reasoning. I make a second random vote, then you vote me by saying that it wasn't random because I said it was random? When my intentions were making a random vote?

I don't know how, but you WIFOMed yourself. Good job.
My vote, as you said, was totally random. Is there any particular reason (preferably other than that circular reasoning) to think that?

[pacman281292]

@Thor: Your logic at post 44 is still circular. And fake.
My reason "for bandwagoning" was indeed a joke. Sorry if you misunderstood I guess
*facepalm*
@Far_Cry: Thanks for the info I guess
@Andrius: Why do you have need to bump the thread? The last post had been 5 minutes ago!
@FakeGod: Again, my reason "for bandwagoning" was intended to be a joke.
@Katsuki: Two words. Alphabet Mafia.
@RedCoyote: I don't know what to feel about that vote. It was at least strange (altough Thor did indeed overreact enormously, but /meh).
Heh. Second game where everyone (well, almost everyone) overreacts to something I say on RVS, totally intended to be a joke.
(Can't mention the other one; ongoing game)

[pacman281292]

EBWOP: At RC's part, the strange vote is RC's vote.

[pacman281292]

The hell, StrangerCoug? Yes it does.

What do you see as the scum angle in my reasoning and vote?

Pretty much my other thoughts have been covered by other posters, but I'm seconding question by Wingless and agreeing with Pacman that Far_Cry managed to post a lot and provide very little.

I never said Far_Cry "managet to post a lot and provided very little". Wingless "questions" are "Why is Thor scum? Why is Far_Cry scum?" as reply to an (IMO) random statement. BS.

I'm fascinated (as usual) by people thinking I'm "over-reacting" to things simply because I'm willing to point out what I feel is the most scummy action in two pages. I didn't over-react to anything, but with only 2 pages of info the threshold of what one finds scummy is lower (fascinating how someone voting someone else for being a mod somewhere isn't an over-reaction. I'm pretty sure my scumtell is more valid then that one, and indeed most of the reasons used for voting thus far.)

WHAT?
*head asplodes*
Your vote is indeed an overreaction to a joke directed to the moderator of one of the games I'll soon play at. How the hell is it "a serious reason"?
*head asplodes again.

EBWOP: @Exilon - so lack of saying agree/disagree is a tell on everyone that posted between your first and second posts? Don't really see the progress.

$5 says Exilon's reasoning is that Far_Cry acted friendly to me in his first post - a massive buddy tell indeed. Don't see much value in hunting for buddy tells at this stage, but then I'm terrible with buddy tells.

Lazy. However, Exilon's post might have a point. Gotta recheck that.

Oops, forgot some two things:

The thing with 'DISCUSS' is that you try and find out why I said so. You're awful.
Also, you should be saying ' I do not agree' or 'I agree.'.

So why are you asking me why instead of stating what you think? GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE HUH
Good, we're making progress.~

I have no idea of Far-Thor. Only things that have happened so far are RVS, then Thor spoiling it. However, I'm going to recheck this.

@Far_cry: Inconsistencies = mafia. Mafia must be more flexible and willing to change stances in order to stay alive and "appealing" to the rest of the town, therefore mafia are more likely to make inconsistent statements.

Vote: pacman281292

Who are you directing this towards? Who's being inconsistant? Pacman, or me?

And happy scumday Thor. You are soon to become a full-grown puppy.

Pacman is being inconsistent.

Where have I been inconsistent?
As of that post, all what I had done was "conform", "RandomVote StrangerCoug", then "Unvote Randomvote bv". I don't see how have I been inconsistent.

@StrangerCoug - I'm not calling a second random vote scummy at all. Why do you think I'm doing that?

I'm calling him claiming it as a second random vote when clearly there were choices and decisions made that he didn't account for as scummy

This reasoning made me laugh.
"Choices and decisions made that I didn't account for". Sure, man. The "Choices and decisions made that I didn't account for" were other people's random votes. I don't get how that might have made my second random vote invalid without invalidating all other random votes, thus failing to answer the adressed question properly. Thus, your logic fails.
I'm starting to dislike this guy...

[pacman281292]

EBWOP: I don't know how did that Exilon post end up inside the FakeGod quote.

The thing with 'DISCUSS' is that you try and find out why I said so. You're awful.
Also, you should be saying ' I do not agree' or 'I agree.'.

So why are you asking me why instead of stating what you think? GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE HUH
Good, we're making progress.~

I have no idea of Far-Thor. Only things that have happened so far are RVS, then Thor spoiling it. However, I'm going to recheck this.

The aforequoted bit should be outside of the quote. It's unrelated.

[pacman281292]

I never said Far_Cry "managet to post a lot and provided very little". Wingless "questions" are "Why is Thor scum? Why is Far_Cry scum?" as reply to an (IMO) random statement. BS.

I thought your response to Far_Cry was an indictment of his vague and not pointed posts. If not, feel free to tell me what your meant. I'll stand by my opinion towards his posts though.
I did second the Wingless questions...I...don't know what point you're trying to make otherwise though.

Well, the smiley is indeed unrelated. That was more meant to be my reaction to hearing him saying that your posting was like this.
The point is mostly directed to Wingless' slight overreaction to Exilon's apparently random statement. I'm not sure, but it seems to be Exilon's playstyle. If so, the question might have been (somehow) serious, thus worth the point. Otherwise it's worthless.

WHAT?
*head asplodes*
Your vote is indeed an overreaction to a joke directed to the moderator of one of the games I'll soon play at. How the hell is it "a serious reason"?
*head asplodes again.

I am not shocked that your head asplodes as regards my case on you. I've yet to see anyone buy into the case on them Day 1.
I still don't find your constant need to restate just how random your vote is as convincing to me.

First, I don't know how do you want me to get a positive answer to such a poor case. Second, I don't know how might I prove that my vote was random. It was, everyone understood the joke except you and (apparently) FakeGod.

Lazy. However, Exilon's post might have a point. Gotta recheck that.

What does me being lazy have to do with anything?
Oh, this is mudslinging - never mind.

Lazy for pointing out Exilon's point on what he said, then deciding not to look more for it because you're bad at it.

This reasoning made me laugh.
"Choices and decisions made that I didn't account for". Sure, man. The "Choices and decisions made that I didn't account for" were other people's random votes. I don't get how that might have made my second random vote invalid without invalidating all other random votes, thus failing to answer the adressed question properly. Thus, your logic fails.
I'm starting to dislike this guy...

I did address the question properly - he asked me if it made sense and I said 'yes'. You can *disagree* with that but implying that I dodged a question is simply more mudslinging.

I didn't say you dodged the question. I pointed out that your answer was indeed invalid, thus saying that your "case" was just baseless.

I'm sorry that you now dislike me, you can still have some of my scumday cake, however.

Don't worry. This isn't personal.

[pacman281292]

pacman's post 55 seems a little frantic. Are you normally this on edge, pacman, or is it because you have votes on you?

I don't know how do you feel this post is "frantic".
Also, I don't care about my meta. It changes depending on where I'm playing, if that's what you're asking.
/quickpost.

[pacman281292]

Sorry. Distracted at catching up with other games. Post coming up tomorrow afternoon.

[pacman281292]

Sorry for the delay. Forgot to post yesterday and got terribusy today.

First, to settle Thor's issue once and for all: My second random vote came just one post after my first random vote. It had totally no serious reason, as is normal with random votes. So, your initial case holds no water, unless you want to imply that a second random vote is indeed a scum manoeuvre (which would be a terrible case of strawman, if you ask me).

Unvote.

Now, rereading. Post coming right away (YEAH THIS TIME FOR REAL!)

[pacman281292]

I reread Far_Cry's post, where he mentioned that overreacting was Thor's signature. At that post he takes a poor stance to a "for bandwagoning" vote. Indeed, "vote for bandwagoning" is a fairly common RVS reason to vote.
Worthless.
FakeGod follows my bandwagon shortly thereafter, with some more bizarre reasoning (that I made an inconsistency by switching my random vote. sorry, but me not see it).
RC tried to pull us back into RVS. Yeah, RVS is fun, and is sometimes important, but it was already clear that RVS was dead. All the posts after Thor's posts (except confirmation by recently arrived players) were serious. Such attempt would be useless, and might have led us to a stall.
I can see Exilon's 57 as semi-random. Trying to produce more discussion at early non-RVS isn't actually a bad idea, even if it's by such bizarre posting. That's what I interpreted from there.
However, at that point I didn't see any particular relationship between Thor and Far_Cry. So, my answer would have still been "IDK".
Far_Cry's 79 is somehow overreacting to Exilon. I don't see how Exilon's play is "typical scum", but I understand the fact Exilon's accusation was at least bizarre.
Exilon's reasoning at post 87 is an interesting theory. However, I think he overreacted to Bub's choice of not taking a stance; Far_Cry had posted almost nothing, and it might have just been Bub's choice of wording what he called as obvscummy.
Humm... me confused.
Also, his response to RC's comment is a large overreaction to an overreaction by RC. The comment was most likely a joke I'd say, but still it might be misleading. So RC's question. Your reply is a huge overreaction to it IMO.
I've got to reread Bub's reply to this carefully, however.
RC's 94 isn't good:
Your post "trying to bring back RVS" didn't actually look like sarcasm. The fact you voted Thor makes me think you did actually mean to say that Thor's pulling us out of RVS was actually bad.
Your response to Exilon's explanation to his move is an overreaction. Exilon was just explaining the meaning of his move; I don't see how it's just him "lecturing everyone on his protownness" as you said.
Last part looks like you didn't read the post well. Bub was just asking FG for his post-RVS vote. What you said was unrelated.
I don't quite get SC's reasoning to vote Exilon at his 96. However, I agree on that his reply to RC's "rolefishing" (huh?) isn't good. I'm more inclined to say it's an overreaction, but oh well.
F_C claims having been on bad mood while writing a post. Well, I think that explains his aforementioned overreaction. Fair enough for me.
RC votes bv, basically for lurking. He claimed being V/LA; I'd like him to talk as well, but it's still a bad vote IMO.
Exilon's reply to Bub's reply:
I don't understand the first paragraph. huh.
Second paragraph is fair enough. Indeed, the first part is WIFOM, but I think it was more of an innocent assumption. Second part of Bub's post was fair enough IMO, so I don't get what are you trying to extract from there.
Third part is also OK. However, what would it imply then?
Fourth part... I reread you in ISO, and couldn't find your reasons to believe F_C and Thor were somehow scum. Only noteworthy thing I found in bold was at ISO2, and was just mentioning how F_C's reply was an exemption to the "scum won't take any stance" rule.
Rest of the post is replying to RC, FC and SC

(LOL THEY ALL HAVE CAPPED C ON THEIR NAMES /unrelated)

. Many of these replies do look like awful overreactions. I might break them down later, but that's the general feel I got from that part of the post.
Thor's 111 is indeed an interesting post. Gotta recheck RC more carefully...
Zaj's post about RC seems like a weak attempt to take a stance. Humm... I'm not sure.


Humm... I'm starting to think this format of catch up wasn't actually a good idea. I'll finish the reread and regroup my thoughts based on it tomorrow.

PS: I'm going to have limited acces, starting this monday (Oct 18). Then I'll have no access between Oct 22 and Oct 29.
I did expect to have at least a little of access during the aforementioned week, but I just confirmed I won't. So,
@MOD: Please act accordingly. If you think me leaving for one week might not hurt the game terribly, then do nothing. Else, I'll have to request temporary replacement. I'll try to help you with it as much as I can. Sorry.

[pacman281292]

Hello everyone.
I'm back from being no access. If I got replaced, tell me so.
If not, well, I'm BACK!
Rereading.
Also, 2 questions:
1) The activity is extremely low (6 pages in 10+ days in a mini game??). I know I'm somehow hypocrite for pointing this out, but is there any special reason for such a poor activity?
2) Why is my vote still on bv? Didn't I drop it?

Unvote.

For people who doesn't understand, please don't answer the 2nd "questions".

Welcome back! And no, I didn't replace you. I'm a man of my word. - Andy

[pacman281292]

I'm currently extremely busy, so I won't have time to reread until tomorrow. Sorry everyone.

[pacman281292]

I was very busy yesterday. Sorry for not posting.
Post coming up right away.

[pacman281292]

Great. I forgot I was doing the reread. Again. Again.
Now I'm finally here to be helpful.
I left my first reread (the one before going V/LA) at page 4. Every single argument was overreacted. lol.
Now, continuing:
PAGE 5:
Far_Cry starts by apologizing for his rude way of speaking early in the game. I think this comment might be misleading in certain way. However, it might actually be sincere.
RC hops on bv in order to pressure him to post. This vote looks awfully like an easy vote.
Katsuki then votes RC for his weakly-reasoned vote. The vote makes some sense, but it itself might look like a weakly reasoned vote. Humm...
Exilon keeps pressure on Bub due to his early reaction to the "craptrap". However, this new post adressing the isue is incredibly messy, and some of the reasoning there is flawed. Some of the replies to other posts are also extremely bizarre. I've seen such a style of posting before, and while it forces people to take hard stances, thus enabling creation of more solid reads from the reactions, it might be easily acted out by scum as "VI play". The fact the player I saw doing this before flipped town gives me a town vibe from Exilon, however.
Thor's 107 (refering to RC's "pressure vote") makes a good point. As a sidenote: While "pressure voting" might be useful in order to force a player to pay attention to something stated by the voter, voting in order to pressure more general action is close to useless, and might just be a way to get off with an easy vote.
Zajnet's 115 is plain active lurking, pointing out what has came to obvious spotlight. Not being helpful, even when asked. His explanation to such playstyle doesn't convince me either.
RC's 118 is much better of an explanation, indeed. The explanation to the vote looks like a Lynch All Lurkers argument, which, while still an easy vote, makes a better point. I disagree with LaL, however. Lurking isn't only a mafia attitude, and I've seen much more lurkertown than lurkerscum in my personal experience. His rebuffing of many of Exilon's "points" does also make sense, but his play is still *somehow* valid, by forcing people to take serious stances, as scum will always think twice or thrice while taking a stance on something that might look like a trap, while Town won't fear taking stances so much.
Zaj's following post is useless IMO. He just goes back from a scum stance on RC to a "slightly scummy" approach, therefore getting back to not having actual stances at all. Heh.
PAGE 6:
Most of Exilon's 127 is dedicated to explain his early day moves. My reaction to the "softclaim" was that it was just a joke, and that Exilon's way of dealing with it was designed in order to make people react to it (still in "provoke reactions" fashion). My reaction to the other part I think I already said it.
F_C's130 is active lurking. Yes, Thor vs me is town vs town. What about the other players?
I'll need to reread FakeGod more thoroughly. His posting confuses me greatly, and his posting was also weak in content. I'll read him in ISO in order to clear my mind.
Exilon explains why he chose Thor and F_C as the "designated scumbags". However, I don't understand what is the conclussion he takes from Thor's answer to this, as he just left it as cliffhanger. Thor flipped town, but I don't know whether this means something or not. Humm...
Wingless votes Exilon with some flawed argument (including a "too Townie" bit). I'm not sure on what to believe, however; the fact he took an actual stance with his own reasons (altough the post was indeed too little of a catchup post) somehow strikes me as town. The fact the reasoning was bad somehow confuses me, however.

Got to leave right now (it's 11:30 PM here). Continuing my reread tomorrow. However, as of now, I'm getting some town vibes for Exilon and RedCoyote (somehow), and some scumvibes from Zajnet and Far_Cry (altough the latter one is mostly due to lurking), with FakeGod at "WTF territory", and Katsuki at undecided.

[pacman281292]

Great. Prodded.
I've gotten busy this week due to exams, so I don't have much time to make a reread. I'll make a better reread tomorrow (the format I've been taking has sucked).

[pacman281292]

I've ignored this game. Like, a lot.
And, I'll be progressively busier.
So, I've decided to roleclaim. Like, right now.

Claim: Luca Brasi, 2-shot Cop.

Antihero is outside the Corleone crime family

. I asked the mod to clarify, and indeed "not a Corleone" means "not town".
I suspected that after skimreading the game, around page 13. I think FakeGod caught that as well. So that's it.
I investigated gandalf night 1, but got no result (possibly got roleblocked...).

Vote: Antihero.

Please lynch him.