Mafia 119: MURDER AT HOTEL DEATH(GAME OVER)

[RedCoyote]

Vote Count

silverbullet999(0) -

Jack(3)

- a2rudeboy, SnakePlissken, evilpacman18

evilpacman18(1)

- PranaDevil
curiouskarmadog(0) -
LynchMePls(0) -
Antihero(0) -
vollkan(0) -
a2rudeboy(0) -
Pomegranate(0) -
SnakePlissken(0) -

PranaDevil(2)

- LynchMePls, silverbullet999

Not Voting(5)

- vollkan, Pomegranate, Antihero, curiouskarmadog, Jack

With 11 alive, it is 6 to lynch

Deadline: November 1st, 2010, 2:00 AM, Central Standard Time

[SnakePlissken]

LMP you didn't answer my question either. Has Jack got a protege in Silver Bullet too?

[vollkan]

Think of it like that if you want, but after utter stupidity elsewhere (I'm pretty sure that we had 7 people quick lynch someone within the space of 12 hours even though the day was only 2 days old on the UKFF, it was something utterly ridiculous like that, so while normally I suppose I'd not be worrying about a quick lynch, after seeing that I didn't want to risk it).

But how similar is UKFF to MS normally? Specifically, MS has a bit of a rep for being uniquely long and drawn-out (which I like) whereas on many other places the game runs much faster. The fact that you had a quicklynch on another forum doesn't really say too much unless it is normally similar to MS.

Not even so much in his own defence, but that nobody had pointed it out at all by that point. It was simply the example I had used immediately after being questioned about why he was "obv. town" to me at the time because it was also the most recent. At this stage I don't feel that going back through Looker's early posts to show further why I felt he was town at that point to be beneficial to the current state of the game.

But it was in his defence. Whether he was town or scum, of course he was going to say that. Also, why does the fact that nobody had pointed it out make it a towntlel?

But then what IS scummy for him?

I don't know, but his normal playstyle sure as hell isn't

Surely he should be playing to the town win condition? Confusing fellow town, creating issues, and generally being a nuisance aren't helping the town to win are they? If this is his "normal" way of playing, then perhaps he should take a good look at himself and start to play to his win condition?

I agree with the above entirely - but that's got nothing to do with his alignment.

[silverbullet999]

Has Jack got a protege in Silver Bullet too?

*blushes*

[PranaDevil]

Think of it like that if you want, but after utter stupidity elsewhere (I'm pretty sure that we had 7 people quick lynch someone within the space of 12 hours even though the day was only 2 days old on the UKFF, it was something utterly ridiculous like that, so while normally I suppose I'd not be worrying about a quick lynch, after seeing that I didn't want to risk it).

But how similar is UKFF to MS normally? Specifically, MS has a bit of a rep for being uniquely long and drawn-out (which I like) whereas on many other places the game runs much faster. The fact that you had a quicklynch on another forum doesn't really say too much unless it is normally similar to MS.

It isn't that similar, I was just in that mindset at the time, therefore that's how I acted.

Not even so much in his own defence, but that nobody had pointed it out at all by that point. It was simply the example I had used immediately after being questioned about why he was "obv. town" to me at the time because it was also the most recent. At this stage I don't feel that going back through Looker's early posts to show further why I felt he was town at that point to be beneficial to the current state of the game.

But it was in his defence. Whether he was town or scum, of course he was going to say that. Also, why does the fact that nobody had pointed it out make it a towntlel?

I used it as an example at the time, but regardless of whether he was town or scum, can you deny it's true to what I said it was, namely something that "needed pointing out"?

But then what IS scummy for him?

I don't know, but his normal playstyle sure as hell isn't

Maybe, but my point is how do we tell when he is or isn't scum?

You're the exact opposite of it in fact, I can never tell when you're scum because you play such a town game. As noted in that previous game we played in (can't remember specifics, but then I'm always crap with specifics like that, I'm sure you're much better at that). I felt you were blatant town right through the game, and it turned out you were scum right through.

So while it might not be a tell, it's something that should be taken into consideration.

Surely he should be playing to the town win condition? Confusing fellow town, creating issues, and generally being a nuisance aren't helping the town to win are they? If this is his "normal" way of playing, then perhaps he should take a good look at himself and start to play to his win condition?

I agree with the above entirely - but that's got nothing to do with his alignment.

Fair point, but it's one of those times when you wonder just "when" the right time to lynch someone like that is, if they act scummy, and you cannot tell when they actually are scum, perhaps lynching them early game becomes optimum for various reasons. The major two being:

1 - It stops town being uncertain in the late game, which can create a mislynch at a point where a mislynch could be disastrous (As if he's scum we might lynch non-scum because "it's his playstyle" but then we may also wind up lynching him as town because those left at that point have bad feelings about him).

2 - It means he might actually realize his "playstyle" of being useless and unhelpful means he gets lynched almost instantly in every game and force him to start being helpful.

Now, I'm not suggesting we lynch him now either, as while I'm concerned about him for reasons I have stated, the fact he is possibly just playing "as normal" combined with evilpacman's vote (after pacman's actions too) make me feel Jack's likely town with scum just jumping on the wagon to get someone who is suddenly beginning to look like a tough lynch through while he potentially has viable people who would lynch him.

After all, right now I would say I'm the easier lynch over Jack, and Jack's lynch becomes harder the more people who are pro-lynching Jack either switch their views, or are killed. So to that end, jumping over to get rid of Jack becomes optimal play now, over getting rid of me, because I had previously stated I would be up for voting Jack, throw in that I pretty much have the choice of me OR Jack, and my decision should be get rid of Jack, because even if I'm 99% sure Jack is town (I'm not, but I'm just making a point), that 1% of uncertainty for me would mean it's better I had someone I was 100% certain in of being town over someone I was 99% certain.

However, at the moment I would rather see an evilpacman lynch for the reasons I've previously stated. But if it comes down to "Prana or Jack" I would actually say stuff conventional views and prefer the lynch of myself because more people seem uncertain of me than they do of Jack, and from what I believe it would put a spanner in the works of the scum's gameplan (i.e. get the harder to lynch guy out of the way, then leave me for an easy lynch down the line).

[Jack]

We should start an alternative wagon.

[SnakePlissken]

Where should we look Jack?

[LimMePls]

Oh, and the Demon shot was awful, he was obv town.

really?...what about his play said town?

The VT claim D1 for starts. And then pretty much every other bit of it.

[LimMePls]

LMP you didn't answer my question either.

This one?

So should we lynch you then? Because by your logic that's what we should do.

Because if so, you can't possibly expect me to answer a rhetorical question. If not, then you need to ask it again, cause I don't see it.

[Jack]

yeah demon was clearly town

[LimMePls]

LMP, I note you've still dropped down to just that part of your "case" now, seemingly dropping everything else in favour of avoiding any of the questions I posed. Why?

Incidentally, regarding CoolDoG, you say I didn't have to make a case, that's as maybe, but I still felt like I needed to go through his posts fully, and as I did not have the time to do so, I didn't.

Then you could have said "I haven't had time to do that CD read I said I would, but I have seen something about Looker I'd like to talk about. But you didn't, you did JACK ALL about it. Which to me indicates that you never really intended to reread CD, you were just saying that. Which implies scum.

Are you now suggesting I should have skimmed his posts to come to a viewpoint on him, rather than taking the time to do a decent job?

Sure. Or you could have just admitted you didn't have time and said something to that affect in thread. Instead you just simply dropped it, which looks lazy or scummy. You aren't striking me as lazy, so...

I suppose if that's how you normally look over people, it would explain why your case on me has no solid basis and that you can't actually respond to any of it without deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.

I LOL'd.

[LimMePls]

After all, right now I would say I'm the easier lynch over Jack,

Why? The votecount begs to differ with you. Why would you say you are an easier lynch? Particularly when you assert my case is bad. This quote does not compute with your defense.

[PranaDevil]

LMP, go back and answer the questions I've asked.

[LimMePls]

LMP, go back and answer the questions I've asked.

Pretty sure I have. The ones worth answering anyways.

[SnakePlissken]

LMP you didn't answer my question either.

This one?

So should we lynch you then? Because by your logic that's what we should do.

Because if so, you can't possibly expect me to answer a rhetorical question. If not, then you need to ask it again, cause I don't see it.

It wasn't rhetorical, and you are not answering anyones questions.

[LimMePls]

LMP you didn't answer my question either.

This one?

So should we lynch you then? Because by your logic that's what we should do.

Because if so, you can't possibly expect me to answer a rhetorical question. If not, then you need to ask it again, cause I don't see it.

It wasn't rhetorical, and you are not answering anyones questions.

Alright, you have got to be an idiot. "So should we lynch you then?" is the definition of a rhetorical question.

[SnakePlissken]

No I asked by your logic, as in you said that Prana should be lynched because he wasn't going to bother with rhe game anymore, you then got called on that possibly being scummy as it could be seen as simple lynch to get the heat off someone else, you then have a hussy fit storm off saying your not going to play because you were getting annoyed or something, so by that logic I asked should we lynch you while you were away then? Not idiotic a simple question and I don't care much for your insults either.

[Jack]

The scum are somewhere in here:

antihero (horror)
Silver (nicolbolas)
a2rude
evilpac(vezok)

by poe

[LimMePls]

I'm not giving up yet, although I feel like it.

He was at 4 votes in a large game and you were going to be gone for 24 hours. How on EARTH could you be afraid of a quick lynch? It's preposterous. Your refusal to clarify it from that craptastic response is bad.

Are you suggesting scum are more likely to be more cautious than town then?

No, I'm saying your explanation is nonsense. There should have been 0 worry about a quicklynch if you were going to be gone 24 hours and he only had 4 votes on him.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be nonsense (There has been lynches quicker than that elsewhere, hence why I was being safe, ask Snake, he's on the UKFF as well), how is it scummy? If it's not scummy, why is it part of your case?

I can't believe I have to explain how it is scummy, but here goes. If you do it in order to look town ("look how pro-town I am, I'm going to unvote so we don't have a quick lynch, aren't I awesomely pro-town guys") then it's scummy. Its a statement that looks designed to appear town. I'd even find just a plain unvote less scummy. But your unvote comes with "reasoning" that is designed to look townie (I want to prevent a mislynch) but is actually terrible logic (there is no way a mislynch would occur in the 24 hours you claimed you'd be gone). If you don't have a reasonable expectation of a quicklynch (which you shouldn't) then there is no reason to point out that you are unvoting to prevent a mislynch, except to create the image that you are pro-town.

Absolutely I assumed it was two teams. I've been in 1 Large Normal and at least 5 Large themes (that I remember off the top of my head) and in all but 1 there were 2 scum teams (the one had a scum team and a super strong SK). So yes, I'd say more than 1 scum team in large games is standard for Large games.

The scum aren't told there is more than 1 team, but they can use the size of their team and the strength of their roles to easily tell if there is only 1 scum team. For instance, in star wars, which was a 22 player game, we (the Empire mafia) were only 3 players (although all with PRs), so we knew right away that there must be a second scum team out there.

I repeat, this is my FIRST Large normal (and my last most likely), you are basically saying that because my only experience of large games is two Kise run themed games that I should somehow assume that there wouldn't be a single scum team.

I'm used to NORMALS having just one scum team. Regardless of whether I'm wrong or right about that, it's NOT scummy by itself. As far as scum/town tells go, it's completely null.

What it IS as a tell, is a "New to large normals" tell if large normals are normally 2 scum teams.

No, it's a scum tell. The scum tell is that you had information the town shouldn't have. Of course you're going to say now that there is a better explanation for why you had that knowledge, but why should we believe you about that? As it stands, you may refute my assertion, but my assertion is simply valid. The fact is, the game looks to be a 1 scum team game, and you were calling it that D1 before we'd had any flips.

The two large games you played with Kise, how many scum teams were there? Are they the only large games you played here? If that is the case, then why would you assume mini normals with 1 team would have more in common with large normals than large themes would? It seems to me like the number of players in the game has more to do with the number of scum teams likely than normal vs theme.

No you haven't. Try again. What specifically was Looker pointing out that you thought was pro-town?

CKD, just look at his last long post.

Opens with a solid point on zwet,

follows up with pointing out Espy had, indeed, pointed out Snake's claim well before he had

(I didn't even put much thought into Looker pointing it out because Espy had already shown it quite clearly by then anyway, why is Looker getting grief for that and not Espy?)

Good first line in response to Vezo as well (I would say that though as it's something I agree with anyway as I said pretty much the same thing earlier), not sure what he means by the next line though.

You also asked leading questions of him (how many scum are in his mafia) that could only ever be answered with what amounts to no more than "How the hell do I know how many scum we have?" Because either he honestly doesn't know, or he would have to pretend he did anyway, it's a pointless question.

All in all, I see zero scum motivation for Looker's actions

, he's been showing himself as obv. town so far and I'm not liking the pressure on him.

Bolded to show my major points in that post, the first pointing out where Looker had, indeed, been pointing things out that needed pointing out (as everyone was blaming Looker for something Espy had already done by that point), and the last one showing that there was no scum motivation in that post, nor had I actively noticed any from Looker at that point.

Do keep up.

As I've already pointed out, you've still failed to explain what I was supposed to know you meant when you said "he is pointing out things that needed pointing out". From the context of when you said that (right around when he was pointing out Snake's watcher crumb) I had to infer that you meant his pointing out the crumb.

LOL. Very cute. No, I didn't make it all up. That is what your words read like. I ask anyone to go back and look at it.

No, you made it up, if that's what it "sounded like" to you, then you have issues, you can't say I said one thing, but meant another. What I type is what I type, not some made up crap that you've decided that it must insinuate.

LOL! So now I'm not allowed to interpret other people's posts? Exactly how are we supposed to find scum then? Of course I have to read what people are saying, look at the motivations of those statements, and try and glean alignment from it. The motivation of that post was "let me look town by saying I agree with the CD wagon, but distance from it with a 'I'll look into it more later' statement". If you'd actually delivered on looking into CD, that wouldn't be the case, but given that statement followed up by you NOT looking into it, the only motivation I can see for you even making that post was the blend with the anti-CD vibe that was going on in the town at the time.

Seriously, your actions in regard to the CD wagon should be enough to swing you all by themselves. I can't think of a better example of scum distancing from an impending mislynch.

So you appear to dodge the central issue. You said I was making a good case on CD, and that you'd look into it 'if you had time'. 7 posts later (clearly you have time because you are able to make a Looker-scum argument) you still haven't commented on CD. Did you ever do that reread of CD? If not, why did you say you would?

I didn't have the time. Guess what? Looker was a bigger priority for me to make a case on at that point in my eyes. Are you suggesting that, when I didn't have much time to make a full case, that I should go after one that YOU feel I should make, as opposed to the one that, at that point, I believe to be more useful?

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is? It's basically: "He had time to make one case, he must have had time to make more as well". Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. Time is not infinite, and when I have non-mafia stuff to do, I have to say that mafia will normally be done last. Not first. If being busy away from the site is somehow scummy then I'm fucked if I know how.

I've already dealt with this in full.

Asked and answered. Your assertion that scum wouldn't know there is more than 1 team is hilarious. It's pretty obvious how scum would know.

Except for the whole fact that it's not always guarenteed scum would know, at least not until day 2 or 3 (Unless scum were lynched right off the bat, then the team opposing the lynchee's team would know).

Throw in the above, namely that THIS IS MY FIRST LARGE NORMAL and your entire reasoning here is just fucking moronic. "He's never played a large normal, but he has to know what is the usual set up for them anyway otherwise it's scummy". That's what you are saying, and it's just fucking stupid.

Again, you may not have played Large Normals, but you've played Large Themes, correct? In your Large theme experience, how many scum teams have there been?

You can call it fucking moronic if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that you made statements D1 that appeared to have information that town can't have had, and your only explanation for it is "well this is my first Large Normal, so I assumed 1 scum team". Why wouldn't you assume 2 in a game this size? You have no other defense for this, so of course your defense is going to be "I didn't know". That isn't good enough.

All of this is just completely ridiculous. How can anyone call that post fluff? Simply absurd.

It's fluff because NONE OF IT MAKES A CASE

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Where are you showing that any of it is "more likely to be done by scum than town"? Where are you showing where the scum motivation for anything I've done is?

Let me get this straight, if I point out multiple instance of scummy behavior, it's not a case unless I also say "which is more likely scum because (insert X)"? Why do I have to hold everyone's hands? If I point out scummy behavior, shouldn't people be able to see on their own why it is more likely to come from scum? This isn't kindergarten, people should be able to connect the dots on their own. Showing multiple instances of scummy behavior should be enough for them to see the big picture (this guy is scum).

It isn't there, it's non-existant, it's just a massive fuck ton of bullshit.

Here's your entire case on me:

"He hasn't played in large normals and assumed scum would be a single team, that's scummy"

Misrep. My point is "he has information D1 town shouldn't have".

"I don't like why he unvoted in case of a quick lynch, must be scum"

Misrep. My point is "town has no reason to be cautious of a 24 hour quick lynch there. Which means this statement is trying to appear pro-town with faulty reasoning".

"He unvoted Espy to check the thread then disappeared for a while through being busy, scummy"

Misrep. The point is "He unvoted Espy and then disappeared." Of course you're going to claim its for being busy, but that doesn't make it so, and it isn't part of my case.

"He felt Looker was pro-town, that's scummy"

Misrep. Where do I assert that a pro-town read on looker is scummy?

"He had chance to check over Looker and not CD? Must be scummy"

Misrep. My point is that you said "I agree with you guys about CD, I'll look into him" and then went 7 posts without commenting on him, not even a "I decided not to look into CD" or "I actually think CD might be town" nothing, simply dropped it entirely. And then, when CD was near lynch, you put your vote somewhere else, implying that you did have time to look at people, but you didn't want your vote on CD. THAT IS SCUMMY.

Every single one of your claims about what my case is is a misrep. Every single one. Nice try though.

THAT'S IT!

There's no more to your case on me, and none of that is scummy behaviour, cautious behaviour? Yes. Lacking in the general knowledge of Large Normals? very much so. Being busy through real life stuff? Hell yeah. But... where is it scummy? Show me WHY it's scummy, nobody has bothered to do that so far.

You've made a poor case on me, and a bunch of people are diving on it as an easy mislynch, yet not a single person who is voting me has given any solid reasons why I am somehow being seen as being scummy, not one. Why are my actions more likely to be scum than town? What scum motivation have I got for any of it? Seriously, I can't see ANY of this being presented.

And then you wonder why I'm getting fucking frustrated and pissed off with this absolute fuck up of a game?

Again, claiming there is no more to my case after falsly representing my case doesn't make it so. Of course you're getting frustrated, you're caught scum. All of your play D1 towards Espy looks like bussing a scum buddy, and your play D2 towards the CD wagon looks like distancing from a mislynch. On top of that you've made posts with information on D1 that town shouldn't have, and a ridiculous "to prevent a quick lynch" statement.

[LimMePls]

No I asked by your logic, as in you said that Prana should be lynched because he wasn't going to bother with rhe game anymore, you then got called on that possibly being scummy as it could be seen as simple lynch to get the heat off someone else, you then have a hussy fit storm off saying your not going to play because you were getting annoyed or something, so by that logic I asked should we lynch you while you were away then? Not idiotic a simple question and I don't care much for your insults either.

Seriously, if you think that question wasn't rhetorical, you need to go back to school, smack your teachers and demand they actually teach you something.

I can't possibly answer it seriously because the only serious answer is "OF COURSE YOU SHOULDN'T LYNCH ME". I disagree with your assertion that my behavior is similar to the behavior I'm calling scummy. If you'd like to point out why you think that, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, but I can't take your ridiculous question seriously.

And I don't give a damn if you're offended or not. If you don't want to be called idiotic, then don't say idiotic things.

[LimMePls]

The scum are somewhere in here:

antihero (horror)
Silver (nicolbolas)
a2rude
evilpac(vezok)

by poe

Jack, help a brother out. I know it might take 15 minutes, but how about explaining the POE that got you to this point. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it'd be really nice to understand what the hell you're thinking.

Also, why is PD not scum?

[Jack]

well I'm kind of skim reading but pd makes dumb arguments and I think it's easy to misread that as scum. You seem town and ckd has a role which I'm not going to mess with. Snake seems town esp in 966. vollkan seems town. pom is town I guess.

That leaves those 4. Silver may be my top suspect, go iso nicolbolas.

[LimMePls]

go iso nicolbolas.

Wow. Nice call. Add silverbullet, and we have a slot that has literally done nothing to help town the entire game. That is awesome. I especially love Nicolbolas' "I've got several town reads but no scum reads".

Jack, what do you make of PD's play towards the CD wagon? What does that have to do with dumb arguments?

[silverbullet999]

*scratches head*
*studies ground some more*

[vollkan]

Not even so much in his own defence, but that nobody had pointed it out at all by that point. It was simply the example I had used immediately after being questioned about why he was "obv. town" to me at the time because it was also the most recent. At this stage I don't feel that going back through Looker's early posts to show further why I felt he was town at that point to be beneficial to the current state of the game.

But it was in his defence. Whether he was town or scum, of course he was going to say that. Also, why does the fact that nobody had pointed it out make it a towntlel?

I used it as an example at the time, but regardless of whether he was town or scum, can you deny it's true to what I said it was, namely something that "needed pointing out"?

I might be missing something here. Are any of the following incorrect?
1) You said Looker was obvtown
2) Your reason for that was that he was "pointing out things that needed pointing out"
3) I have now pointed out that it was in defence
4) You say, regardless of whether he was town or scum, it "needed pointing out"

4) seems to directly contradict the combination of 1)+2).

PD+2

contingent on my facts being correct.

Maybe, but my point is how do we tell when he is or isn't scum?

I don't know. This is a problem I always have in games with Jack. Policy lynching is never the answer, and pointless debates about how anti-town his playstyle is only waste time.

So while it might not be a tell, it's something that should be taken into consideration.

To an extent. If hypothetically Jack and X were tied for my number one suspect position, I'd vote Jack in a heartbeat, given the great big question mark over him.

So, my problem with playstyle lynching is less against playstyle lynches per se as it is with the assumption that someone like Jack's playstyle creates sufficient uncertainty about their alignment to override clear scumminsess from others.

1 - It stops town being uncertain in the late game, which can create a mislynch at a point where a mislynch could be disastrous (As if he's scum we might lynch non-scum because "it's his playstyle" but then we may also wind up lynching him as town because those left at that point have bad feelings about him).

This sort of argument often comes up in relation to VIs. My problem with it is that it assumes that the risk involved in a lynch with a greater-than-average likelihood of NOT hitting scum (because it isn't alignment-based) is justified by reference to risks later on in the game.

2 - It means he might actually realize his "playstyle" of being useless and unhelpful means he gets lynched almost instantly in every game and force him to start being helpful.

I have a problem with this sort of policy argument. The cardinal rule of Mafia is "Play to meet your win condition". If you are pushing lynches for policy reasons, you are violating that rule.

However, at the moment I would rather see an evilpacman lynch for the reasons I've previously stated. But if it comes down to "Prana or Jack" I would actually say stuff conventional views and prefer the lynch of myself because more people seem uncertain of me than they do of Jack, and from what I believe it would put a spanner in the works of the scum's gameplan (i.e. get the harder to lynch guy out of the way, then leave me for an easy lynch down the line).

Doesn't the above assume Jack is town?