Mafia 121 -- Picking Simplicity Game Over

[eldarad]

/confirm

[eldarad]

/confirm

Jack: what's you'e facination with eldarad?

The more relevant question is: why are you not fascinated with me? Huh? HUH?!
Interesting fun fact - Jack was an IC in my very first newbie game on mafiascum.

I have no idea how to assess Jack's claim. I do have the urge to jump on a wagon though.

VOTE: LMP

[eldarad]

I also never claimed that antihero was scum. In fact, I even made a disclaimer in the post that I voted that I didn't think that antihero was scum persay but that voting him was better than alternatives available at the time.

Oh, you put a disclaimer in your post when you voted? That makes it alright then!

~~~
Nikanor, how come you haven't moaned at Jack for giving the SK advice on who to kill? How is Jack's post different to the one of Glork's you had a problem with earlier?

~~~
@Haylen - I don't really have a scumread on anyone at the moment. I'm interested in LMP and Nik, and I guess Azazel to a lesser extent, based solely on the quote above.

[eldarad]

Just bought Fable 3. Posting frequency will drop as a result.

~~~

How is advising the sk to kill scum similar to advising the scum to kill a town pr? Careless fake scumhunting

I didn't say they were similar. I asked Nik how they were different.

What Jack said. You didn't see me giving Glork flack for asking the SK to kill me.

I want to understand the principle behind your objection to Glork's post and how that principle doesn't apply to other posts because at the moment I'm not getting it.

Surely Glorkscum has no need to give scum advice on who to kill in-thread because he can just give that advice at Night? Or is your issue with Glork's advice that you don't think the scum would have thought to kill a claimed power role if left to their own devices?

Why is giving advice to the SK acceptable if giving advice to the mafia isn't? Or are there specific things about Jack's SK advice that makes it OK?

~~~
Just a quick point on Yos/Empking.
I don't believe scum lie about things that are easily verifiable. That makes Empking's first point - about Yos lying regarding LMP - wrong.
It seems to me that from there Empking's further points are fruit from the poisoned tree.

[eldarad]

eld: If the meta is that scum don't make easily checked upon lies then scum will realize that and then make easily checkable lies. (After all, he lied and nobody but myself thinks him any scummier for it.)

OK, whilst I agree with the general idea that as soon as a meta is established, scum will act to subvert that meta, I can't agree with this specific point - I don't think scum will lie about things that can be disproved. A much more likely explanation is that it is an oversight - I don't consider this to be a tell either way.

~~~
I wouldn't call Empking obvtown, but I do think Snake's jump on the empwagon is very scummy with his "Empking is posting a lot to overcompensate for being scum" reasoning, particuarly when it isn't borne out either by facts (ie, by counting) or anecdotally (it doesn't even "feel" like Empking is posting excessively).

Preview edit - man, I didn't even clock the vanilla soft-claim...

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Snake

[eldarad]

Snake's posting has been poor but I can't say I see him as much scum as the person I'm currently voting.

So, to clarify, do you find Snake's posting to be scummy (albeit not as scummy as LMP) or not?

[eldarad]

I'm still more than happy with a Snake lynch, I reckon this is the play for Today. I'm not liking the CJwagon.

I agree with the general sentiment "how the hell did you get to page 12 without posting?" but I think all of these CJMiller votes are being made out of annoyance that the player has not made a single post up until now rather than because they think he is scum. Glork's reason is slightly different but is still just a variation on the theme.

It doesn't make CJ scum, it just makes him absent for the past week. Regardless of whether you blame him, the mod or the players (or a combination of the three) for letting him get this far his absence isn't a scumtell.

[eldarad]

@Jack - I agree #300 has an odd "tone". He's right that CJ didn't confirm in-thread beforehand but it doesn't seem to warrant the attack on Haylen for a point that isn't even the main thrust of her post.

My gut reaction is that mothrax and Haylen are scumbuddies manufacturing an argument to create distance. But then on page 14 AGar picks it up and runs with it which kinda throws me off a bit. But then, can I see a Snake-mothrax-Haylen-AGar scumteam? Well at the moment, yeah, I can...

~~~
@LMP - I'm fairly meh about the Empking case. I don't like Emp's case on Yos at all - as I mentioned earlier I think the very first building block of the case is flawed and so the whole house of cards falls down (I prefer "fruit from the poisoned tree" but I don't want to use the same metaphor twice...)

Yos' case is good, I can't fault it and agree with much of it...but it leaves me empty. At no point have I felt like voting Empking despite the good points that Yos is/was making.

~~~
Nik, Vas - why do you oppose a Snake lynch?

~~~
This post would have been made 45 minutes earlier if I hadn't been distracted by the Axis of Awesome:
http://axisofawesome.net/index/?page_id=3

[eldarad]

My case on Antihero (and Azazel by association) is best understood by this sequence of posts:
<snip>

LMP's case looks to be more on Azazel than antihero, yet he seems to be working hard to shoehorn the points into a case on antihero with any scumminess attaching to Azazel "by association."

Azazel's disclaiming of his vote, and especially when he specifically referred to the disclaimer when his vote came under scrutiny, was very scummy. But it is the only scummy thing Azazel did. That's not a case.

~~~
I don't like AGar's interaction with Haylen from Yesterday, and I definitely don't like AGar's interactions with/regarding Haylen Today. Nik's #477 hits the nail on the head I think.

VOTE: AGar

#489 made me lol.

[eldarad]

^^No it isn't. Look at Antihero's post after Azazel's "I need to see where this goes" buisness. That post is from scum. Period.

Yes it is.

From #431, the first quote is where Azazel votes for antihero and then disclaims his vote ("I don't want him lynched but I think I need to see where this goes.") This is a good, solid point against Azazel.

The second quote in antihero responding to Azazel's vote, where he explains why he made a random vote after the supposed end of RVS. The bit that you call appeasement is nothing of the kind -
Azazel: "Antihero is the only one who hasn't commented on Jack's claim"
Antihero: "regarding Jack's claim, I agree with UK"

That's just a normal, natural reaction, there's no appeasement there whatsoever. In fact, the lack of original statements/opinions goes against your appeasement logic, as you'd expect someone trying to appease a questioner to come up with something new as an answer.
You can't have it both ways.

And Nik's #57 where he moans at Glork for giving scum advice does smack of scummniess, so I've no problem with that vote.

The third quote is, if anything, a point against Azazel. And I'm not even sure it's that.

So how you can come up with a case on Azazel and then proclaim that antihero is scummy, with Azazel scummy by association, is beyond me.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: LMP

~~~
AGar, it's not particuarly the 'slip' that bothers me, its more that your push on Haylen looks suspiciously like a policy lynch dressed up with a thin veneer of "she looks scummy" and when that is dismissed using a meta argument you say "well, she's playing badly too. And those two things aren't mutually exclusive"

It just doesn't feel right.

[eldarad]

I don't get elderad's vote.

In a nutshell, I don't understand how LMP's case, such as it is, can be used as a basis for a vote on antihero when it is primarily focussed on Azazel.

Now, I haven't figured out why LMP would vote on that basis, but it doesn't make sense from a town perspective. From a scum perspective I guess I can see it being done as a method of bussing or to link a scumbuddy to a townie.
LMP's #519 where he suggests a chainsaw defence link between Azazel and antihero just makes me further feel like LMP is linking a buddy to a townie.

~~~
@Nacho, I deliberately avoided commenting on the UK case when I posted #518 because I wanted UK to address the case before other people jumped in.

The only valid part of your case, in my view, is your highlighting of the neutral reads in iso#50-54 apart from the scum read on Lowell. Although actually #54 suggests a scummish read on Xine in a non-committal way.

The things pointed out in #2, #29 and #67 aren't scummy.

~~~
I don't like Xine's #529, particuarly the bit where he points to Empking as being scum because Yos was NKed.
Xine's #565 is pretty bad too. I'm getting a pretty strong scumread on Xine.

...and we're back to the lying/sincere mistake thing regarding Haylen this time, rather than Yos. Why is this repeatedly being brought up as an issue?!

#578 is interesting and I think needs exploring more, but I don't have time to go into it further just now.

[eldarad]

you say that my case on antihero (which is strong and simple) is interesting but that you can't look at it now(??) even though Antihero's guilt would seem very relevant to LMP.

Indeed, it is very relevant to LMP, as I was looking at LMP-antihero interactions whereas you came at it in the other direction. Which is why it looks interesting and I wanted to look at it in detail (specifically, I wanted to read the quotes in context)

I'm happy with the points and the contrasts that you highlight, both above and particuarly in #625, plus #668, which is pretty damning.

I don't understand what you don't understand about it, or why you jump from "I don't see why town" to "scum".

He finds them both scummy.

They have a weird interaction that doesn't sound natural --> since they are both scummy it's distancing scum interaction

I don't recognise the weird interaction between them. But yeah, your explanation makes sense if he finds them both scum (which he does) and he sees weird interaction between them (which I suggest he doesn't).

The only interaction LMP identifies is a supposed chainsaw defence between azazel and antihero, which doesn't mean a lot at this point.

What do you think of LMP's ISO 12 and 13? I basically feel like you are making a case on lmp based off of one post and haven't even bothered to read him in ISO or look at the post that he made that one in response too.

Yes I read his iso, and addressed #12 and #13 already - although it was lumped into the consideration of #431, which was a post that quoted LMP's previous posts.

~~~
@Vas, #1 is OK but not "damning", to use your words. Yes, AGar is tunnelling. I'm not convinced that AGar's iso#15 is scummy at all.
#2, there is some inconsistency in AGar's attitude to meta, but I've gone cold on that as an indication of AGar as scum.

[eldarad]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: UK

[eldarad]

We lynch Nacho today and Jack tomorrow.

Wait, you want to lynch Jack for a proven fake-SK claim? So what do you think his real role is? You think the mafia are counterclaiming the SK?

As for nachocop, I would like to hear from him, but I too think that the "moderation error" implies that nacho was sincere about his cop result.

VOTE: Haylen

[eldarad]

Based on the speed of that lynch, I guarantee you there is 2 scum on the back end. That puts 2 scum (possibly 3) in {Xine, Empking, RedCoyote, Lowell, Eldarad}. My money is on Eld and Empking. Both voted on that wagon on the tail end with completely content-less posts (ie just votes). They weren't interested in considering the ramifications of lynching the SK.

So you think that the speed of the lynch of a player who claimed SK, but then had nacho claim a guilty result on him, was excessive to the point that 2 or 3 of the last 5 (but not the first 4) are mafia?
What is significant about the 5th vote that makes it indicative of mafia compared to the 4th vote?

Why do you automatically discount the possibility of UKmafia fakeclaiming SK to buy a Day or two? That's a one-way bet for mafia, surely - why do you think it is so unlikely that you jump to "ramifactions of lynching the SK" as if it was a foregone conclusion?

~~~

I think he was CCing the real SK.

Why?!

Why cant people see this.

Nacho claimed cop with guilty on UK.
UK flight SK.
SK is investigative immune.
Thus Nacho must be lying.

Or...
UK claims SK and suggests he can be a vig
nacho has a guilty on UK so knows/thinks UK is lying
nacho claims his guilty result
there was a mod error

[eldarad]

Or...
UK claims SK and suggests he can be a vig
nacho has a guilty on UK so knows/thinks UK is lying
nacho claims his guilty result
there was a mod error

meh. Or move the 1st line down to below the 3rd line, which would be more like what actually happened...
Doesn't really detract from the point though.

[eldarad]

@LMP:

So you think that the speed of the lynch of a player who claimed SK, but then had nacho claim a guilty result on him, was excessive to the point that 2 or 3 of the last 5 (but not the first 4) are mafia?
What is significant about the 5th vote that makes it indicative of mafia compared to the 4th vote?

Why do you automatically discount the possibility of UKmafia fakeclaiming SK to buy a Day or two? That's a one-way bet for mafia, surely - why do you think it is so unlikely that you jump to "ramifactions of lynching the SK" as if it was a foregone conclusion?

~~~
I'm surprised by the speed of the LMP wagon but I find myself not caring. I think LMP is a good lynch Today.
I also note that Haylen is trying to discredit the LMP wagon, which makes me want to lynch LMP even more. Having said that, I would much prefer to lynch Haylen Today.

~~~

@mod: please prod Nikanor and antihero

[eldarad]

My wagon is still terrible. Glork still hasn't answered my questions. I don't really know what else to say.

Well, while you're waiting for Glork to answer you, why don't you answer my questions in #383?

[eldarad]

Vote: Anti

Why have you chosen this, rather than voting for one of the people who were trying to discredit the LMP wagon? (ie, Haylen and RedCoyote)

[eldarad]

If anyone is thinking of hammering, hold off for a bit, I'm writing a post now.

[eldarad]

I am more than happy with the RC wagon, as he is one of the two players Yesterday who were attempting to discredit the LMPwagon.

I don't like #955 at all, the analysis doesn't ring true.
LMP's "look at these people once I'm dead!" post isn't worth taking seriously since he was a scum going down and he also ensured that his "targets" covered most of the player list. For RC to then pick a couple of those players as being more significant than others as a way of justifying a vote on AGar strikes me as disingenious.

VOTE: RC

~~~
I think Haylen's case on AGar in #980 lacks substance.
I accept the point that AGar didn't attempt to defend against it, and that's a strike against him, but it's not particuarly damning and I'm not getting any kind of scumread off AGar.

[eldarad]

I will not reveal any of my innocents. If I get enough innocents where the innocents + me make up a majority, then we win. Now, naturally, if scum knew who my innocents were, they'd be able to make a move to kill them early. But as long as I confirm all of the obvnondoc people I can, I'm pretty sure we'll be fine.

I will not reveal my guilties. Because I'm confirmed as cop, once I get a guilty result on someone, they're scum; we can lynch them whenever we like, so there's no rush there. Which means that I can watch scum interact when I know they're scum already, and do pretty well in discerning their partners. Scum also won't know how many innocents I have, so they won't know how close they are to losing the game.

I agree with this.

I would also prefer if you all let me hammer. I'm sure you guys won't be able to take a confirmed innocent of mine up to L-1, but just in case, I'd like to have the last say.

I don't agree with this.
You are a mod-confirmed cop. That gives you a veto over the lynch of confirmed innocents. It doesn't give you a veto over any other lynch, although your opinion will naturally carry more weight as you are a confirmed innocent yourself.

But it seems I have to make my intentions clearer. Elderad is not being lynched today because of some investigation result. We're making an example out of Elderad to show townies and scum alike that quickhammering is the worst possible mistake they can make. He has to die based on principle before anything else, honestly.

Quickhammer?!
Just to be clear, at no point did you oppose a hammer on RC.

Elderad, claim in your next post.
Bolded for your convenience! For everyone else, no more votes go on elderad until he claims, okay?

I am not prepared to claim at this point.

~~~
I agree that Vas has been keeping his head down all game, either by making non-contraversial posts or by simply not posting at all.

VOTE: Vas

~~~
In other news, I just cooked a pizza with the plastic base still underneath. Sigh.

[eldarad]

You hammered him before he claimed, and when I specifically told you not to. That's a quickhammer.

You didn't oppose a hammer, you just said that you wanted to hammer yourself.
RC had a chance to claim in #992, and he was resigned to a nacho-led lynch. That doesn't sound like a doc talking to me. Does that sound like a doc to you?
Let's face it, doc was the only claim that was going to save him at that point.

You will claim in your next post, or you will be lynched without a claim. Don't try to squirm out of this.

I refer you to my answer in my previous post.

~~~

Eldarad, I really do want a response to my earlier question, but I'll rephrase it... Nacho asked that nobody hammer. you post, asking that nobody hammer, because you had something to say, that something was "I think RC is scum" and a hammer. why would you ask folks to not hammer, and then not pursue more discussion? should I put you on the clueless townie list with me? (are you scum or stupid?)

Nacho didn't ask that no-one hammer. Here's what he said:

That's L-1. Let me hammer.

I read this as "I'm happy with this lynch, I'll hammer"
I was happy with the lynch, I was prepared to hammer, the cop didn't oppose the lynch, so I hammered.

For the second part of your question, there's no mystery. I had a couple of pages to catch up on, and I just didn't want someone to hammer while I was writing a post. Not least because NS tends to be online at around that time of day and so the thread could have been closed shortly after the hammer but before I had gotten to post.
As it turns out I wrote my post fairly quickly (as you say, there wasn't a lot I wanted to talk about) and NS didn't close the thread even though he was the next poster. I didn't know either of those things would happen when I wrote #995.

And to answer your last question, I am neither scum nor stupid. (Although I am incapable of correctly cooking a pizza. So go figure.)

~~~
@DH - every time I have read one of your posts Today, I get the feeling that you have misread stuff that's gone on so far Today.

It's fairly obvious that nacho hasn't got an investigation result on me. Firstly, because nacho has said that he hasn't got an investigation result on me. Secondly, because nacho is asking for my claim, which makes no sense if he has investigated me.

Do me a favour and re-read Today from the beginning, and then summarise your thoughts on the Day so far. After that, you should rejoin us on the Vaswagon.

And what do you mean when you say I have been on every wagon so far?! I've been on some wagons, but I've opposed other wagons...

[eldarad]

But it seems I have to make my intentions clearer.

Elderad is not being lynched today because of some investigation result.

We're making an example out of Elderad to show townies and scum alike that quickhammering is the worst possible mistake they can make. He has to die based on principle before anything else, honestly.

Seriously DH, re-read the Day from the start. Once you've done that, if you still feel the same, then we can talk about this more.

[eldarad]

And for the record, let's get the supersized, capitalized and in bolded print.

THAT'S L-1. LET ME HAMMER.

How the hell could you read that as "elderad, you have the clear to hammer"? I said let me hammer. If I was happy with the lynch, I would've voted. If I wanted someone else to hammer, I would've said "go ahead. hammer.". But when someone says let ME hammer, that means that they want to hammer. Comprende?

Yeah yeah you wanted to hammer. I get that. The point being that you were happy with the lynch or else you would have said so.
If you had an innocent result on RC you would have said. As I said, you don't get a veto on every lynch - only those that you have innocent results on.

RC was not a nacho-led lynch.

I have my doubts that Antihero is scum, but y'all can lynch him when I'm dead and gone.

That's what I've been trying to tell you!

In all seriousness,

it's your show at the moment. Are you ready to lynch?

Here is RC resigned to a nacho-led lynch. Whether you want to call it a nacho-led lynch or not isn't that relevant - RC certainly thought it was one.

And you know, you've had TWO chances to claim and you still haven't claimed yet. That sure as hell doesn't sound like a doc to me!

You asked me to claim - twice - at L-5 on the basis of nothing. I don't get why you are surprised that I refused, or why you have reached a conclusion about my role based on my refusal.

I am the doc.

[eldarad]

I agree with the xine/Glork plan of sidestepping the doc issue until Tomorrow.

I can get behind a haylen lynch, but I think Vas is a much better lynch prospect Today. I don't really see the merit of an AGar lynch.

[eldarad]

Why? VV is a flake.

Is he? His general posting frequency has been low throughout - he tends to make posts in clusters about once a week.
And I can see he has been posting in another game today, so I guess he will show his face here soon.

In terms of why we ought to lynch Vas - I haven't bothered to write up a full case, but here are the bullet points:
- Vas's positioning on wagons per DH's #1020
- apart from his weak though insistent push on AGar, all of his votes have been sheeping other people.
- no original ideas or firm positions. Take #613. He declares Nocmen town, but on the two ongoing issues at the time, he comments but doesn't express an opinion on either.
- the AGar push was lots of noise but no substance. My gut reaction is this was Vasscum trying to be seen to be taking a contraversial position but it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

~~~
As a heads up, I am going home for Christmas on the 22nd, from that point I am likely to have very limited/no access for about a week.

[eldarad]

This was a nice game, and I think I played well as scum. It's also one of the nicer games to read - 47 pages but at no point did it feel like hard work to keep up. So thanks to everyone for being entertaining and concise.

The mod error really screwed us. Once the mistake is made there isn't a way to fix it nicely - you either screw the town (by making them mislynch their cop) or you screw the mafia (by mod-confirming the cop).

In the end the game boiled down to how quickly the mafia could find the doc, and we were nowhere near. If I hadn't fakeclaimed we wouldn't have NK'ed DH Night 5, and it's doubtful we'd have picked him up on Night 6 either.

I'm just waiting for confirmation from the others before giving out the scum QT link.

[eldarad]

Scum QT: http://www.quicktopic.com/45/H/UhZxFJsfYeeHm

[eldarad]

Wow. I was pretty much wrong about everything on day 1 of this game, wasn't I. Well, good thing I got nightkilled before I did much damage, I guess, lol.

Given your track record of lynching me as scum, I wasn't going to take the chance!