Mini 496 - Wild West Mafia. Mod Abandoned

[GodOfWine]

Hey everyone, sorry I'm late Was in Florida for a few days. Reading the thread now. Lot of action going on.

[GodOfWine]

Although normally I'm enthralled by the prosect of a fast Day 1 lynch, I don't know if lynching Adam would be all that informative, especially if we are trying to figure out whether or not the writing is infallible.

For something to be infallible, there would have to be more than one occasion of truth at least. Maybe if we can get a new "note" Day 2, there will be a possibility of lynching someone who is targeted by both notes and can, through one lynch, decide the infallibility of the notes, instead of being forced to use 2 lynches (at least!) if we decided to lynch Adam Day 1. '

Personally I think that, seeing that somebody has targeted him specifically, it might be useful to keep Adam alive purposefully and see if we can sort of follow him to scum, or at least to a power role.

Or, defying probability, Adam may have even wrote the note himself in an effort to make the equivocators like myself keep him around longer. In which case, it STILL might be beneficial to keep him around because otherwise we'd be without a note Day 2, and this note (and hopefuly those in the future) really makes the game interesting.

[GodOfWine]

Well pdcakes, lynching Adam, as I was trying to say in my last post, would NOT actually prove if the notes are true or not. To "prove" if the notes are true, we will probably need at least two instances of truth. The only way we can get two instances without committing mass town murder, is to make it to Day 2 and try and (assuming there is a second relevant note) try and lynch someone who is referenced or targeted by both notes.

Just for a reminder, we are sure that it is not the mod who wrote the note and that it is definitely a player? I would personally bet on a power role player writing it, but it also may very well be the mod's way of increasing Day 1 activity.

[GodOfWine]

vote: pdcakes

In your last post, you made it sound like lynching Adam is our best if not only option at this point. First I totally disagree with, not because I am defending Adam's play (which I find kind of neutral right now), but because of the way you support lynching Adam even with all the logic provided against that option, and you don't actually make a case against this logic.

[GodOfWine]

There's no reason a newb can't be scum, and be a little confused about how to act. Now I'm hardly saying that I really think pdcakes is scum, but I do think that someone who makes a post like he did deserves at least one vote.

[GodOfWine]

I was just saying that if we are gonna vote a random player i think it should be adam. at least it will get us farther then randomly killing a townie

At this point, voting for Adam is not random. Because the note was your impetus to vote for him, it nullifies the possibility that a vote for Adam could actually be random now.

There is also a possibility that a mafioso wrote the note, and is accusing town. Doesn't that have an equal possibility? It's simple, but hey, Occam's Razor.

[GodOfWine]

I agree with you wholeheartedly curiouskarmadog. What I was trying to get across to pdcakes was that we really shouldn't single Adam out unless his behavior warrants it. The note should not buy him a free pass thru Day1 nor should it cause an automatic lynch.

[GodOfWine]

Okay, I think I have realized what the general problem is here. At least it would explain the confusion between me and pdcakes.

Pdcakes, it's not that I don't understand what you are trying to say (if we were going to end up voting randomly, then why not just vote Adam because there would be at least some reason for it) but I just don't AGREE with it. What I am saying is that Adam hasn't done anything to protect or condemn himself yet, so it would only be counter-productive to lynch because of the note.

I think it is just a clash of two irreconcilable theories.

[GodOfWine]

BTW, if you do want to attack me... making a case based on the idea that OTHER PEOPLE DID NOT ATTACK ME is probably a bad place to start.

I didn't see why what Para was saying was so stupid. I do find it weird that after everyone had the impression you were pushing for a No-Lynch (Im not saying you actually did see?), that hardly anyone jumped on you about it. Either the scum thought that would be too small of a wagon to actually get away unnoticed, or that you are scum, so the scum knew not to jump on you.

Personally I don't really find Twomz that scummy right now, but I think we can learn something about the mafia from what Para was saying. I know I run the risk of over-speculating here, but the failure of a wagon against Twomz's No-Lynch might mean we are dealing with a more cautious than aggressive mafia.

And just to clarify (because I see where it got Twomz) these are not my beliefs. These are just possibilities that have not been disproved, thus still have to be considered.

[GodOfWine]

You took that out of context SirWario. So you're saying that it is entirely normal for someone who proposes a No-Lynch on Day 1 not to suffer a wagon. I think thats unusual. But I'm also not accusing anyone. I was just trying to use what we've got to get as much information as possible.

[GodOfWine]

suggesting a No Lynch can lead to an easy wagon that scum will eagerly join to draw suspicion elsewhere.

[GodOfWine]

SirWario has three heads and every one is the biggest

[GodOfWine]

Ha I've done this twice now. This was meant to show up at the bottom of the fourth page. You guys are way ahead of me

[GodOfWine]

I thought I was on the last page of the thread, and I did a quick reply to the last post of the fourth page. Read my recent post right after the few at the bottom of the previous page, it makes more sense. I should have just quoted. Less trouble.

[GodOfWine]

SirWario is making me a little suspicious, with the way that he posts relatively frequently but so far has not actually offered an opinion about any players besides attributing pdcakes impatience to newbiness rather than scumminess. He tends more to talk about game theory questions inseatd of events that are specific to this game. I'm pretty sure he is still voting for curiouskarmadog, who coincidentally has posted opinions (ex: about the no-lynch) that are very similar to SirWario's. I think it's just a leftover from the random voting phase, but if it's not I would like some substance. Anyway, SirWario, consider this a warning that your ambiguity will no longer go unnoticed.

[GodOfWine]

My mistake, GodWario.

[GodOfWine]

There's always time for one last hurrah.

I just don't know too many prefixes that are loftier than "sir". KingWario?

[GodOfWine]

Okay ryan here's something to jump on.

People from Iowa are usually scum. It's science.

[GodOfWine]

hmm, well there is three votes on pdcakes,

Adam's contradiction,

the fact we are on page 6 and still in the random vote stage...

Is this just him saying that the note is false, or did he contradict himself somewhere and I missed it?

[GodOfWine]

I remember now curiouskarmadog. About that whole contradiction thing, I can't really make up my mind. This may not be what he was trying to say, but what i got out of the whole pdcakes being cautious was because he held on to an idea about lynching Adam without ever actually voting for him. That's what I think Adam was calling cautious. But he must only be selectively cautious because holding on to an idea that everyone else has abandoned woul definitely draw attention to yourself - the exact thing a cautious mafioso would avoid. I think both pdcakes is guilty of having contradictory behaviour, and Adam is guilty of reading selectively, and making statements that aren't thorough.

[GodOfWine]

Just letting everyone know I'm here and up to date. Don't have time to post tonight, definitely tomorrow (tuesday). Happy hunting!

[GodOfWine]

About this whole collective check-in scumlist thing, I suggested this in the first game I ever played and a tidal wave of response showed me how scummy that suggestion is, mainly for the reasons that Adele posted. This idea forces everyone to make a clear post of who they feel may be scum, and people's hypothetical intentions can be easily turned against them later. It gives the scum concrete evidence to quote and mislead.

I don't mind coming out and saying that less and less, I feel like pdcakes is scum, but I know that initial wave of suspicion was definitely there and it was strong enough to convince me to be prudent in unvoting. Right now I feel like everyone has been making such a successful effort to stay neutral, its a little hard to draw the necessary lines.

[GodOfWine]

Okay well since everyone (who is relatively active) seems to agree about the list idea, I will submit to democracy. But I will not take any blame whatsoever for suggesting the idea if later it turns around and bites us in our collective ass.

Who wants to go first? Twomz should initiate, it was his idea.

[GodOfWine]

Para, you mentioned that you have already stated who you find the scummiest so there is no reason for you to post that information again, but instead of reiterating those people in list form (without the details which were allegedly posted earlier) they were never mentioned again, since you began your discussion on whether or not scumlists are beneficial.

Would you mind just giving us the names because I can't quite remember you making very many suspicions public, but I don't always trust my memory.

[GodOfWine]

FoS: Thin Man

Do something about it.

[GodOfWine]

My scumlist:
(This list is not in order)
1. pdcakes
2. ryan
3. Thin_Man

1. leftover suspicion from our first interchange. he has been relatively inactive since then. does this heighten my suspicion? i cant decide
2. no matter what anyone says, he panicked, and panicking leads to playing like albert b rampage, which no one enjoys.
3. overly dismissive of nearly everything.

[GodOfWine]

I am no friend of Adele! At least not in the sense of inactivity.

Anyway, I'm stuck. I just haven't seen anything to jump on. There has been some activity and minor disputes but nothing that I would normally interpret as scummy. I think the majority of evidence thus far is personal scuffles, including mine with pdcakes. Where to now, St. Peter?

[GodOfWine]

Actually thin man, I do find Adele just as suspicious in regards to the dismissive quality as you, but seeing as right now I'd never vote either of you and was just posting my list like a good townie-boy, I included you and not Adele, because you're more active and I could elicit a reponse much easier. The only two people I would vote for in a deadline situation now would be pdcakes or ryan

[GodOfWine]

alright sorry for that unclear post. i didn't mean never. i meant at this moment, i don't see enough to vote for EITHER THIN_MAN OR ADELE. I think thats where most of the confusion was. Yes pdcakes I realize my vote is on you. That is no mistake.

Right now I would vote for pdcakes or ryan. I find the similar behaviour of adele and thin_man suspicious but not enough to vote for them right now. if something else happened i did not want to imply that my opinions could not be changed. bad word choices.

[GodOfWine]

unvote, VOTE: Twomz

My suspicion of pdcakes was moderate at best and this recent garbage spewing from Twomz is complete scum nonsense in my opinion. As a general rule I have to attack anyone who has advocated a no lynch, and twomz in post 383 second to last paragraph openly admitted that he "would not mind" a no-lynch. No-Lynch is a free pass for scum and I have never seen it help any town.

Post 398 also upsets me. Why are you discussing how certain play detracts from the "fun" of the game and not from the gameplay? Who would you characterize as a "posting lurker"? Where are you going with all this garbage!?

[GodOfWine]

vote: curiouskarmadog

you basically painted yourself into a corner by voting for Simenon who was "revealed" to be scum through the first note, while the second note told the town to be wary of you. Be wary of someone does not have positive connotations. If the "author" wanted to address you in a positive light, they easily could have said something like "be aware of CKD, or Pay attention to CKD" this might be a different story. Be wary definitely implies danger. And even if Simenon is acting suspicious, you should most nearly know whether or not he is scum. You choose scum, and I will be consistent to your line of reasoning.

[GodOfWine]

EBWOP:

Vote: CKD

[GodOfWine]

Sorry for the delay. It seems my suspicion of CKD's reaction to the note has snowballed a bit since I've been gone. Anyway, I just read thru the 4-5 pages I have been missed and my vote stands on CKD. Para thinks his nameclaim sets him apart which is somewhat true. But I will not be adding that to my reasons for voting CKD, just to be clear. I don't buy his roleclaim after the unusual way he handled himself.

[GodOfWine]

CKD: GoW votes then lurks? It hasn't even been one day since my last post! That's not lurking in my opinion but I guess you're entitled to yours. Also I will jump onto the dogpile: Why are you so sure that mafia cannot roleblock? I was under the impression it was relatively common. I would be even more inclined to accept the possibility of a scum role blocker, when we apparently have a weirdo-arbitrary note-writer role. Anyway, certainty is quite a tell.

[GodOfWine]

Gorgon, you are a moron. You totally manipulated the point I was making about posting scumlists. What I was saying was, early in the game, most people dont have definite top 3 scum prospects, they have a general idea of who they find suspicious. Once you ask people to post these lists in a ranked fashion, the assumption is that they find the three people on their list scummy. There is a difference between suspicious and scummy, which you apparently don't understand. Then, once these lists are posted, it is extremely simple for people to make accusations and draw connections between two people based on Day 1 suspicions. Did you happen to forget that I posted my own list like the rest of the town, once I had made my point clear about the later use of these lists? Posting the list would not hurt me after I alerted everyone to their possible uses.

Also, lame and easy reasons? Like you're the Einstein of the game so far. The reasons that I have voted for players before (pdcakes, Twomz, and CKD) are concrete and obvious. I'm sorry if you like to refer to that as "Lame and easy". I'm not making excuses for votes that don't need them.

CKD, why are you so shocked that I still have my vote on you? You really haven't made any progress towards the clearing of your name, besides a quite possibly specious vig claim. If anything, by continuously asking me why my vote is on you or whether or not I'm considering unvoting you, you're coming off even more frantic.

P.S. - Gorgon, change your avatar so everybody doesn't hate you anymore.

[GodOfWine]

Would someone please explain to me how I overreacted? I know that I have a tendency to overreact, but I read my post over, and I still think everything I said was entirely appropriate.

[GodOfWine]

honestly we know who's writing the notes, but we don't "know" his alignment. he claims town with no special knowledge but we won't be able to prove that until tonight. right now, just keeping my vote on you until someone else catches my attention. im not one of those people who unvote as soon as some evidence turns up against the vote. right now, my vote is not endangering you, so im leaving it. although i do really feel like heading up a gorgon wagon right now for that ridiculous avatar. reason enough to be lynched? i think so.

[GodOfWine]

I guess humor is lost on this crowd. Gorgon's avatar is a model of artistic thought.

Right now, I do not feel like my vote can do any more good than sitting where it is. I guess while nothing is happening, I will do a full reread and see if my suspicions change.