Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Vi]

Speculating about the setup doesn't seem like it would be a worthwhile move right now simply from the lack of information. We can draw a few likely conclusions from Night 0, but grasping for possibilities without any evidence to substantiate one notion over the other is the definition of Junk Science.

@Juls: I don't think Scheherazade's comment means much. Normally the scum is the group doing the killing, after all - seeing one of the Bad Guys get killed out of the blue is unusual.

Also, I am not convinced that Sche is scum yet. I believe the point of FoS is that you think that something they said is suspicious but aren't completely convinced of their scumminess yet. Is that not correct?

Welcome to Day 1. If you're "convinced" that someone is scum on Page 2 and you're not a Cop, there is something seriously wrong. Moreover, a vote is evidence that you're willing to step out and stake your reputation on someone being scum; that the votee is the person you'd like to see lynched most at the moment (generally synonymous with "most suspicious"). If you believe in what you're saying, take a stand and don't be afraid to be wrong.

Unvote: forbiddanlight

(L-∞)

Vote: Juls

(L-7)

Like so.

[Incognito]

Vote Count #2 of Day 1

Vi (1) -- Juls
al4xz (2) -- Caboose, iamausername
Scheherazade (1) -- strife220
ribwich (1) -- Jazzmyn
TAX (1) -- DoomCow
DoomCow (1) -- TAX
Caboose (1) -- al4xz
Percy (1) -- DerHammer
Juls (2) -- ribwich, Vi

Not Voting (5) -- Scheherazade, Percy, BobHiggs, Gerrendus, ZazieR

With 16 alive, it takes 9 votes to lynch!

[al4xz]

Vote: Juls

[Vi]

Vote: Juls

'Anything else to say on that note?

[al4xz]

Must I always state my reasoning behind a vote?

[ribwich]

It would be nice.

[Gerrendus]

I think that it being Scheh's first time here shouldn't preclude them being scum or rolefishing. He may actually be experienced. For example: I have not played on this site before but I have played online mafia before. Does that instantly mean that "while that may be scummy he's new so it's probably a slip and he's probably innocent" is a valid argument? I think not.

Vote:

Scheherazade

[Gerrendus]

And I'm not sure about the rules on editing here, I know we frown on it at the otehr site I play mafia on, but stating some reasoning (even if the reasoning is pure randomness) is always benefical. If you've picked up on something that other people didn't that might help us to pick out the scum.

[Vi]

Must I always state my reasoning behind a vote?

If you don't, we're left to assume that you had no reason and like jumping on bandwagons as opportunistic scum would, etc.

@Gerrendus: The rule on editing is that you can't. Use Edits By Way Of (Another) Post, or EBWOPs.

[Scheherazade]

I think that it being Scheh's first time here shouldn't preclude them being scum or rolefishing. He may actually be experienced. For example: I have not played on this site before but I have played online mafia before. Does that instantly mean that "while that may be scummy he's new so it's probably a slip and he's probably innocent" is a valid argument? I think not.

Vote:

Scheherazade

This is true: I've played before in real life. However, I think Caboose was the only person who explicitly based his non-vote on my inexperience. Anybody else who's made mention to the comment seems to think it's not role-fishing or anti-town for different reasons. If they simply lied about their reasons and indeed let me off because of my join date, then let them reconsider here.

[Percy]

My vote on Scheher is non-random

Who could have killed the scum player, out of curiosity? Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

I think scum would be more likely to say this than town, and I'm surprised nobody seems to agree.

I agree. The defence seems to be that he was pointing out that there could be an insane doc, but I feel that was not the point of his post. At the very least, it would be a good way for someone scummy to throw people off track, with townies trying to figure out who the Doc-That-Kills-People-And-Doesn't-Know-It-Yet is rather than who the scum are.

Vote: Scheherazade

[Scheherazade]

@Percy: I think the biggest source of confusion over my post is the use of the word "who." By "who," I meant, "what faction/role" as clearly evidenced by the following sentence, where I list possible "who"s.

If, however, you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading, you might stop at the word "who" and assume that I meant "what player or players" by saying "who."

I listed the reasons for making the post (hint: there were two...). If you don't like them, I've no right to force you. But it's obnoxious that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

As for the red herring argument, it's obvious that such a search would be useless. Only idiotic townies would ignore scum-hunting for the sake of identifying a town power role, which can only really be done to a certainty by the power role himself. In order for a diversion effectively influence people, it has to seem more tantalising than their original object.

[Juls]

@iamusername point taken

Unvote

Clearly people don't like the use of FoS. I am suspicious of Scheherazade so if it makes people feel better for me to use vote instead of FoS,

Vote Scheherazade

[TAX]

Scheherazade you seem suspicious to me. But not enough to vote.

Another random vote.

vote:Vi

[Caboose]

I think that it being Scheh's first time here shouldn't preclude them being scum or rolefishing. He may actually be experienced. For example: I have not played on this site before but I have played online mafia before. Does that instantly mean that "while that may be scummy he's new so it's probably a slip and he's probably innocent" is a valid argument? I think not.

Vote:

Scheherazade

This is true: I've played before in real life. However, I think Caboose was the only person who explicitly based his non-vote on my inexperience. Anybody else who's made mention to the comment seems to think it's not role-fishing or anti-town for different reasons. If they simply lied about their reasons and indeed let me off because of my join date, then let them reconsider here.

I definitely don't think that your inexperience should pardon you from being lynched at all. If the mod assigned the roles fairly, he did it randomly. The scum team could be made up of new people, experienced players, or a mix of the two. My point was just that the fact that you're newer to the site makes the argument of role fishing a little weaker to me, because you're exactly how I was when I came to this site (and I wasn't scum in my first game, either). On the other forum where I play mafia, we usually don't have a random voting stage, but a "talk about the set-up" stage where we try to guess the setup until someone says something scummy and we go from there.

[Vi]

@TAX: Why "another" random vote? And why not place it on the person you find suspicious? Not that I mind a vote on me, but your motives are sketchy.

----

On the other forum where I play mafia, we usually don't have a random voting stage, but a "talk about the set-up" stage where we try to guess the setup until someone says something scummy and we go from there.

I'm guessing that doesn't take long~

----

Clearly people don't like the use of FoS.

*ka-ching*
FoS is basically getting up on a high horse and saying

I formally accuse you of suspicious activity using

bold

text!

when that should already be apparent from your reason for your FoSing in the first place. In other words, it's overrated, pretentious, and only good for being parodied (i.e. Middle Finger of Suspicion).

----

Re: Scheherazade - It's a pretty clean play to shoot down your own newb card defense. I'll give you points for that.

[strife220]

To everyone talking about set-up:

Discussing power-roles in no way helps town at this point. Our job is to find scum, and discussing the game set-up and what power-roles may or may not be present will not help us achieve that goal right now.

Discussing power-roles DOES help scum. Example being as IAUN just pointed out. If you say "it would be stupid of a vig to kill N0," then scum now know you're probably not a vig (if it turns out that a vig did kill the scum N0).

good start with the goon being killed.

My new #2 scum suspect. Sheh + Der = scumpair.

. The only one who could do so is a vig, and if a vig killed the goon then he's stupid

As IAUN said, there is a strong argument for vig killing on N0, and just about every night for that matter. There are probably a couple of threads in 'Mafia Discussion' if you can't see why.

[ribwich]

I don't think what Scheherazade has done is very suspicious, but I do agree that any more talk about the setup should be ended.

[OhGodMyLife]

All hail Incognito, best co-mod the world has ever known.

[Percy]

I listed the reasons for making the post (hint: there were two...). If you don't like them, I've no right to force you. But it's obnoxious that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

I read your reasoning. I understand your defence. I'm just not convinced.

Your post reads like a rolefishing post and, as people have gone to great lengths to demonstrate, this is a bad idea. And then you posted twice more, going into detail. Even worse idea.

This is my first ever game of mafia, and my inexperience is something I'm very aware of. If someone voted for me for something called 'rolefishing', I'd try and find out about rolefishing and come to the inevitable conclusion that it's a

bad idea

. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your claim of inexperience works

against

you in this instance - either you're scum, or you're charging around (while being both rude and dismissive) without first researching your best possible moves.

Just in case it's the latter, I'm going to

Unvote

and

FoS:Scheherazade

instead.

[Der Hammer]

good start with the goon being killed.

My new #2 scum suspect. Sheh + Der = scumpair.

Hmm, thats exactly the sort of reaction I was probing for.
Your my new #4 scum suspect.

I don't find Sheh suspicious.

____

good start with the goon being killed.

have I missed something or is their a reason why insane doctor has even been mentioned yet

Vote:Percy

Read the damned thread, goddamnit.

I have been reading the thread, its just a role I have never heard off, and think there are far more plausible options to be considering?

[Scheherazade]

@Percy: If I meant to be rude, I'd have quoted post 66.

Your last post shows again that you haven't read carefully. First, I didn't make any claims to inexperience. I did quite the opposite in post 84. Second, you voted for me, addressing only one reason given in my third and fifth posts and when you revisited your suspicion of me, you still didn't address the second one.

Another note: I know what role-fishing is. I know exactly why it's bad to role-fish for town. I know that it's a huge scum-tell to role-fish for town power roles. Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish bluntly in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

@Caboose: I didn't mean to imply that I thought you would never vote for, just that in one post you cited my supposed inexperience as the difference between agreeing with the role-fishing argument and questioning it.

Anyway, the point of the post was to say "I'm not a complete newb to mafia, so don't let any inexperience argument sway you."

[Percy]

Who could have killed the scum player,

out of curiosity?

Wracking my brain, a serial killer, an insane/CPR doctor, a vigilante-type or a different faction of scum come to mind.

This doesn't seem like a warning. This seems like an attempt to start a conversation about who could have killed the scum player, and a happy side effect was that an insane/CPR doc scenario would be talked about.

Role fishing for scum is scum-hunting, isn't it? And identifying the serial killer, if we have one, benefits town because he's going to kill us, too.

This indicates to me that you think role fishing is a good idea.

Further,

Mostly

it was to point out to any doctors who may have defended one of the deceased that they might not be entirely sane. It doesn't

require

that they role-claim, just that they consider the possibility that they're insane before they go about protecting town.

Emphasis mine. This doesn't indicate to me that it wasn't rolefishing. It indicates to me that it's a good rolefish. You've a very good reason why you'd ask it aside from any rolefishing agenda (but if everyone started talking about it the scum would get lots of info) - you're just spreading the word! Mostly.

Sorry, I thought (only of?) the advantage (was?) in alerting possible insane/CPR doctors to their condition and (also?) the advantage (was?) given by trying to open up the game, so that we don't all assume something.

Without my insertions, you haven't constructed your sentence properly. It has two possible meanings, I think, which I've indicated with my suggestions. Feel free to correct me.
With the first option, you're saying "whoops, I didn't mean to rolefish". That's what I thought you meant until you posted this:

This is true: I've played before in real life.

Hence, I thought your claim to experience was sound, thus the second reading of the above. Hence the vote.

If you really wanted to warn people, I'd imagine it would go something like this:

Just had an idea - perhaps one of the kills was a doctor killing someone, either on purpose or by accident. If you are a doctor, please think about what happened and how that could be used for us. If you're not, please be aware of this in the future. Let's not talk about this, though, to avoid rolefishing.

But that's not what we got. If you're a smart, experienced mafia player who just wanted to inform people without any rolefishing, your post would have looked a lot more like the one above.

You then posted this:

I think the biggest source of confusion over my post is the use of the word "who." By "who," I meant, "what faction/role" as clearly evidenced by the following sentence, where I list possible "who"s.

If, however, you feel less than motivated to think about what you're reading

, you might stop at the word "who" and assume that I meant "what player or players" by saying "who."

...

But it's obnoxious

that people would post without reading carefully, much less vote.

I wasn't confused by this point by whether you meant who or what faction or role. You just wanted to talk about crazy doctors, and I think that is rolefishing. Also, dismissive parts bolded. It's really not that I'm offended, it just seems like you're not willing to defend yourself with logic, you're just trying to intimidate me.

As for the red herring argument, it's obvious that such a search would be useless. Only idiotic townies would ignore scum-hunting for the sake of identifying a town power role, which can only really be done to a certainty by the power role himself. In order for a diversion effectively influence people, it has to seem more tantalising than their original object.

Again, what I hear is "This plan would not give definitive proof". The fact that another townie said this:

have I missed something or is their a reason why insane doctor has even been mentioned yet

might indicate to you that your plan simply (or at least mostly) to "alert the people and not have it be talked about" had failed. Not only that, you say it can't be done to a certainty; well, of course that's true. This is mafia. Again, you say it would be an ineffective plan, but that doesn't mean it wasn't rolefishing.

And then,

Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish

bluntly

in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

... are you saying that "since everyone knows" it's a bad idea to conduct blunt rolefishing on the first post,

ipso facto

it

can't

be blunt rolefishing, and to claim otherwise means you're not reading the posts? That's quite a leap of logic right there! And even then, that doesn't preclude the situation where you're just conducting

subtle

rolefishing in the

guise

of informing the town in a way that suggests you're

just starting a conversation

.

Anyway, the point of the post was to say "I'm not a complete newb to mafia, so don't let any inexperience argument sway you."

And that's it. You know what you're doing. The plan was mostly (but only mostly) not about rolefishing. All attempts to convince me that it

couldn't have been at all

about rolefishing have failed - it could have been a very subtle catalyst of a gigantic rolefish. You also know that only scum rolefish, and want all of us to believe it too. Putting that all together is a bad combination for you.

I thought I'd pull back for a bit, but I need a better explanation than any you've given me. Perhaps in your bluster to save your ego you have overstepped, in which case you need to get over it, admit you were wrong and get on with serving the town rather than yourself.

Vote: Scheherazade.

[DoomCow]

Scheherazade you seem suspicious to me. But not enough to vote.

Another random vote.

vote:Vi

So random voting on page 4 is better reasoning than someone you are suspicious about? I'm starting to like my vote where it is..

[ribwich]

Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish bluntly in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

Except you were role-fishing. You even said it yourself, you just called it "role-fishing for scum."

At first I was thinking that what you did was just an honest mistake. There's a chance I would have even made a similar post at the time since I was unaware of how it could be bad for town. (Although now I can very easily see why it is.) But, for you to even deny that what you did was role-fishing makes me more suspicious of you.

Unvote: Juls
Vote: Scheherazade