Mafia 57: Good Ol' Mafia - Game over!

[DogMom]

I'd like to request that no one "hammer" until we have some more discussion.

Leaning towards Albert B being the italian mafia currently.

Ancalogon is the other possibility. He hasn't posted enough.



I played another game with a similar newbie ratio with SV. She was scum with me and stuck through the whole game with no complaints. This game she asked to be replaced out of frustration. You do the math.

To be honest, I don't think it says anything about her alignment. I think it says more about the game and the other players than anything.

[JDodge]

First things first...

I played another game with a similar newbie ratio with SV. She was scum with me and stuck through the whole game with no complaints. This game she asked to be replaced out of frustration. You do the math.

Of course! Because you replaced SV, you must be town!

DogMom: So because you changed your strategy, you must be town?

[DogMom]

DogMom: So because you changed your strategy, you must be town?

Thing is, it wasn't a changed strategy. Had I been scum, it would've been a "changed strategy" - as it was, for me, it was the SAME strategy: find scum.

I want to see if I have this right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're basically most suspicious of me because I posted large amounts of details against 3 people, said that I found Nightfall to be the most suspicious of the three and then didn't hammer him.
Is that a fair summation? If not, please post what's really going on here. I do want to know.

And yes, I saw before that you said I had beaucoup suspicions of Ancalagon and didn't vote for him. Throw that in there. For me, at that point in time, I thought Nightfall's

radical departure

from his usual playstyle was more suspicious, especially in the context of his consistent "non-committal", refuse-to-finger-anyone posts.

[JDodge]

I want to see if I have this right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're basically most suspicious of me because I posted large amounts of details against 3 people, said that I found Nightfall to be the most suspicious of the three and then didn't hammer him.
Is that a fair summation? If not, please post what's really going on here. I do want to know.

I'm suspicious of you because you focused on Ancalagon relentlessly and have all of a sudden just stopped even caring whether or not he exists in the game whatsoever, and yet when you had less on Nightfall than you had on Ancalagon, you suddenly changed your tactic.

It's not a radical departure from Nightfall's normal play. It's the way in which it was a departure from Nightfall's normal play.

[Jack]

I'd like to request that no one "hammer" until we have some more discussion.

Leaning towards Albert B being the italian mafia currently.

Ancalogon is the other possibility. He hasn't posted enough.



I played another game with a similar newbie ratio with SV. She was scum with me and stuck through the whole game with no complaints. This game she asked to be replaced out of frustration. You do the math.

To be honest, I don't think it says anything about her alignment. I think it says more about the game and the other players than anything.

Having played in both, the game and players are almost identical. A lot of repeat players in fact.

[JDodge]

Number?

[Ancalagon]

So, the only way we can win is if we NL tonight, and the Mafia hit each other, or we lynch American Mafia and the Mafia hit each other during the night.

DogMom seems suspicious solely based on the fact that she hasn't been nighkilled yet. Maybe that's craplogic; I don't know.

Albert B. Rampage hasn't given me much of a read so far.

I'll have to look over Jack and JDodge, and whoever Jack replaced.

[Jack]

Number?

5 or so repeats, very similar feel.

[DogMom]

I want to see if I have this right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're basically most suspicious of me because I posted large amounts of details against 3 people, said that I found Nightfall to be the most suspicious of the three and then didn't hammer him.
Is that a fair summation? If not, please post what's really going on here. I do want to know.

I'm suspicious of you because you focused on Ancalagon relentlessly and have all of a sudden just stopped even caring whether or not he exists in the game whatsoever, and yet when you had less on Nightfall than you had on Ancalagon, you suddenly changed your tactic.

It's not a radical departure from Nightfall's normal play. It's the way in which it was a departure from Nightfall's normal play.

OK, I see where you're coming from now. First, though, I did

not

focus on Ancalagon relentlessly.
The only posts I mention him are
A reply to Mariyta, asking why she wanted "everyone" to "vote Ancalagon"
Where I say I don't see much of a case against him
Discussing the SL - Ancalagon thing, and saying that Ancalagon had a sorta-point, that SL

may

have actually launched an ad hominem
Asking Ancalagon for his case against SL
Asking Ancalagon if he has any case against SL except for the logical fallacy

Note: even though I didn't say this, and I probably should have, the reason I was dismissing the logical fallacy was because I thought that A was putting way too much time and effort into it. Not being scummy, just tenacious, and I thought it was a useless way to try to find scum. Especially since I figured that SL was town, at that point.

Here is the first time I say anything really AGAINST Ancalagon. In a PBPA of

Nightfall

.
In which I mention that I'm highly suspicious of Nightfall, by the way. AND express my intent to hammer if he doesn't come up with good explanations for his actions...or rather, his lack thereof.

NOW I have a FoS of Ancalagon. In his PBPA.

After

the expressed intent to hammer Nightfall.
Perhaps you're confusing me with Mariyta? Dunno how, because she hardly posted anything, but she had it

baaaaaad

for Ancalagon.



Incidentally, I started getting suspicious of Nightfall before I demonstrated any suspicion toward Ancalagon.

Would you please review my posts, either in or out of context, matters not to me, and let me know where you saw my "relentless focusing" on Ancalagon? Yes, I responded to his posts more than I did to Nightfall, but that's because he was

posting

and Nightfall wasn't. Tough to respond to someone who's not there.

[DogMom]

Oh, there were a couple posts I didn't point out where I mention him either in passing or am making brief, neutral replies to something he said. They're irrelevant to the above post, which is why I didn't list them. Somehow I'm figuring nobody wants to see me to a PBPA of myself.

[JDodge]

Number?

5 or so repeats, very similar feel.

No, no, game number? This could be fairly important to your case.

[JDodge]

You focused most on Ancalagon. I never said you focused solely on Ancalagon.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

It is time for the third vote count of the day!

1 - No Lynch (Albert B. Rampage)

Not Voting: Ancalagon, JDodge, Jack, DogMom

Remember, with 5 alive it will take 3 votes to lynch!

[DogMom]

You focused most on Ancalagon. I never said you focused solely on Ancalagon.

<shrug> I guess. Most of my "focus" on him, though, was interaction with him, rather than focusing ON him-as-scum. Like i said, there were really only 2 posts where I focused on him-as-possible-scum.
The main one of which, the PBPA, came after I expressed my suspicions of Nightfall, AND my intent to vote for him.

[DogMom]

Adding: I didn't ever say you said I focused solely on Ancalagon. You said, and I quote, that I "focused on Ancalagon relentlessly". My point was, either you're misunderstanding the word "relentless", or that you're misrepresenting me.

From Dictionary.com:

that does not relent; unyieldingly severe, strict, or harsh; unrelenting
—Synonyms rigid, unbending, obdurate, adamant, unyielding.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Unyielding in severity or strictness; unrelenting.
2. Steady and persistent; unremitting.

I was neither unyieldingly severe, strict or harsh, nor was I "steady and persistent".
One post, ending in a FoS and an aside. That's all I did to Ancalagon as far as "Ancalagon-as-scum".

[JDodge]

I will refer back to earlier:

The answer is simple; I was going by memory. When I reread to present a case on livingod, I found a distinct lack ov evidence.

And I've finally figured it out. It's not necessarily that you said quite a bit; it's

what

you said that carried more weight than the rest of your content.

[Jack]

Number?

5 or so repeats, very similar feel.

No, no, game number? This could be fairly important to your case.

Mafia 59: Hell on Earth

[JDodge]

Number?

5 or so repeats, very similar feel.

No, no, game number? This could be fairly important to your case.

Mafia 59: Hell on Earth

Exactly my point. Is there perhaps a chance she showed remorse for her actions here?

[DogMom]

I will refer back to earlier:

The answer is simple; I was going by memory. When I reread to present a case on livingod, I found a distinct lack ov evidence.

And I've finally figured it out. It's not necessarily that you said quite a bit; it's

what

you said that carried more weight than the rest of your content.

Ah...I was wondering if it was sort of a "livingod" type thing.
Interesting. I hadn't considered that what I said about Ancalagon would appear any weightier than what I said about Nightfall. At least, to

me

they seemed to be pretty much equal. Hm. I'll have to think about that.
Really, to me, they both seemed like scum. So, to me, it didn't really matter which one got lynched yesterday, because as far as my "readings" went, lynching Nightfall -vs- lynching Ancalagon was lynching scum -vs- lynching scum. No downside.
I realize that at this point, in retrospect, that makes me look and sound

very

much like opportunistic scum, saying "hey, one lynch is as good as another, doesn't matter who gets lynched", but honestly, it's not. They were pretty much equivalent, scum-wise, to me.
Had the lynch been aimed at someone I was getting more of a "townie" feel from, then bygolly I would've tried to tailor my posts to convincing y'all to aim that lynching gun elsewhere.
Obviously, Monday-morning quarterbacking says "should'a aimed elsewhere".

[JDodge]

Okay then.

Next up: Albert.

Why aren't you posting?

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't have much to add. It seems obvious that there will be a no vote, so I'm just reading the posts for now. I'm just going to wait for Jack and the italian to make it go to night.

[JDodge]

I don't have much to add. It seems obvious that there will be a no vote, so I'm just reading the posts for now. I'm just going to wait for Jack and the italian to make it go to night.

???

Doesn't this seem

odd

to anyone else?

[Albert B. Rampage]

The way I see it, the american mafia will try to lynch someone...but they will fail because of the two townies and the italian.

Jack has already stated that he wanted a no-vote, so its only a matter of time before he places his choice.

The italian's only chance is to kill both mafia and convince the townies he's innocent. So my take is the italian will also go no-vote. Well, probably not now since I've stated it but...meh you get what I'm saying.

Point is, if we don't reach a conclusion there will probably be a no-vote at the deadline anyway.

[DogMom]

The way I see it, the american mafia will try to lynch someone...but they will fail because of the two townies and the italian.

Jack has already stated that he wanted a no-vote, so its only a matter of time before he places his choice.

The italian's only chance is to kill both mafia and convince the townies he's innocent. So my take is the italian will also go no-vote. Well, probably not now since I've stated it but...meh you get what I'm saying.

Point is, if we don't reach a conclusion there will probably be a no-vote at the deadline anyway.

What makes you

so

sure that Jack is not "the italian"?

Is anyone else seeing this the same way I am???

[Albert B. Rampage]

He may or may not be anyone, but the fact that he was the one who proposed to vote: no vote makes me think that he will carry out his sayings.