Mini 192 - Circus mafia - Game Over! Discuss?

[Rubric]

Man, you guys are post-shy. There are scum on the loose!

Well, okay then.

Vote LoudmouthLee

for criticizing the reasoning behind a random vote, and for casting a retaliation vote.

[Rubric]

Nightfall, I'll assume you're new. Its how I play. If you don't like it, that's fine.

I have no problem with how you play.

I pull no punches. I believe PBug is scum. If he proves otherwise, I'll unvote. He hasn't yet.

He random voted me, but that WASN'T why I voted him.

If you weren't criticizing his random vote, why did you say "How about a real reason?"

If you weren't retaliating, why did you say "OMGUS" (which I presume means Oh my God, you suck.)

Read, please

Sure thing, Nightfall.

[Rubric]

I read LoudMouthLee's post as kind of joking with the OMGUS and random-vote reasoning, so Rubric seems to be barking up the wrong tree with that. He seems a little too eager at it, so he's most suspicious in my book.

It was just an arbitrary vote. LoudmouthLee was the only person who had really said anything of substance, so I commented on it when I voted.

I will say, however, that his agressive response set off a couple of alarms for me.

[Rubric]

I have no clue why Rubric is defending me...

Uhhhhmm... I have no clue why you

think

I was defending you.

Lee gave some lame reason for voting for you. I pointed out that it was a lame reason, and cast an almost arbitrary vote for Lee to emphasize the point. That was pretty much it. It has nothing to do with WHO he was voting for.

Still, I am going to

Unvote Loudmouth Lee

, because people are using the vote as a reason to send some feigned suspicion towards me.

Instead, I will

Vote Phoebus

.

[Rubric]

Rubric - How many games have you played online?
What Lee mentioned is definitely not a "lame reason" but a fairly common tell. Day one lamenters usually have information. While 8 out of 10 of them will be scum, 1 might be totally clueless and the last one might have other information like PBug here who claims mason. For that same reason I'm inclined to believing him.

Okay, that's fine. I'll take your word for it that it's common on this site. I think that just goes to show how "group think" works in different groups.

This is only my second game on mafiascum, but I have played several games online at boardgamegeek.com, including moderating one.

I have never seen anybody base their vote on

who posted first

.

Sorry for calling it "lame" -- I'm just not familiar with the mafiascum playing style. At BGG, it would definitely be considered a lame reason, and would cause people to vote for you in response.

For now, though,

UNVOTE Phoebus

.

[Rubric]

LML did not vote PBuG because he voted first, but because he said the following:

Man, that sucks, two deaths.

Although there are reasons for complaining about deaths, one that complains about the deaths is often scum.

Oh okay. I didn't understand that part. I didn't know what Lee meant with his comment about "opening day lamenter". But right after he posted his vote, Davidangelsummers chimed in to point out that Lee was voting based on who posted first. (See post #6.)

Vote Davidangelsummers

for misstating other people's reasons. And yes, I misstated it too, but only because you did it first....

[Rubric]

Rubric seems to be really trying to deflect attention away from himself.

Errr... yeah that happens when people start voting for you!

Voting for David just seems like a distraction rather than a genuine suspicion.

I got criticized for misstating the reason for LML's vote. I'm just pointing out that the reason I misunderstood his vote is because David misstated it first. That's all. It was not meant as a distraction.

I'm still trying to get the vibe of mafiascum.org. Different groups vote for different reasons. You folks here seem to like to cast your votes when somebody misinterprets something. I'm only pointing out who actually did the misinterpreting.

[Rubric]

I am a peanut vendor. I sell peanuts and popcorn. I apparently do not have cotton candy, although I think I should.

Lynching me would not be a good idea, nor would forcing me to explain what I can actually do (however, I will do the latter if people feel it is necessary).

At any rate, this is my first time (out of 6 or 7 games on another site) where I am about to get run over by the bandwagon on Day 1. It's kind of exciting, but I can't say I really like it that much....

Look guys, you are all picking on me because I made a comment about somebody's reason for voting, which was admittedly misguided by somebody else's comment (that person being David).

When I initially cast that vote, it was mostly arbitrary. Yes, I stated some reasons, but the post itself was in response to dybeck's comment about "Man, you guys are post-shy. There are scum on the loose". (See post #9). I was just trying to get something started. Little did I know that the scum (probably) were going to start beating me up over it.

The reasons I gave were that LML was criticizing the reasons for a random vote, and that he was casting a retaliatory vote (post 10). These are essentially non-reasons (much like the reasons many of you are voting for me). I acknowledged later that it was basically an arbitrary vote. It wasn't "random" technically, because I DID have reasons, just not strong ones. Hence, arbitrary.

Anyway, look how Davidangelsummers is now putting words in my mouth:

I was just having a bit of joke text for the first post like I allways do...Breaks the ice ...I did not misunderstand anything...I just thought it would be funny then old P pipes up and has a pop and now you...Both for no reason at all!

I never claimed that he

misunderstood

anything. I said he

misstated

the reason for LML's vote, which is what he did. I don't know if it was intentional or not. Note that he is also claiming my vote was for "no reason at all", which is a lie.

I see that David is also now hiding in the pack with an obvious retaliatory vote, which won't look suspicious tomorrow because of the bandwagon.


Comments on my other "fans":

Mepmuff: claims to be voting for me for "sloppy play" (post 57). Thanks, I'm flattered.

JereIC: initially voted for me because I "seem too eager" (post 21).

Somebody explain to me how these are good reasons. Does it negate these reasons if I admit them? Yes, I made a mistake. Yes, I wanted to get some discussion started. So there, get a real reason, guys.

Stewie: says I misinterpreted LML's reasons for his vote. (post 50). I could see that as a good reason if it was deliberate. However, I think I have adequately explained in previous posts how I arrived at the misunderstanding.

LML: claims that I am defending Pbug (post 31). First of all, it's a lie. My criticism was aimed at LML's reasons, not his target. But note that LML later admits that Pbug is a confirmed innocent, so who cares if I was defending him anyway?

LML: Denies that he was casting a retaliatory vote (post 14). Oh, is that how you do it? Okay, I

deny

that I am over-eager and sloppy.



Anyway, I don't know if any of this will sway anybody, though I rather doubt it. One or more of the bad guys have successfully put me on the defensive, which makes me vulnerable because I don't know how your "group think" works here, and don't know how to protect myself. Obviously you folks have a lot of different philosophies than the people I usually play with.

I must say it is amusing to watch the mob forming, though. One thing that appears to be a similarity between mafiascum and BGG.com -- nobody trusts newbies, because they don't "fit in". (And I mean "newbie" in the sense of new to the site, not necessarily to the game itself.)

I have played "lynch the newbie" in a couple of my past games, however. I assume you guys know that it doesn't usually work out the way the mob expects.

Whatever happens, you should at least spread the vote out a little bit. Don't let the scum hide inside a giant bandwagon, because then you will have nothing to go on tomorrow.

[Rubric]

Vote count, please, mod? I want to see whether Rubric has 3 votes or 4 votes.

Ooooh, interesting question.

For the record, the last official vote roster appears at the bottom of page 2, when only LML and JereIC were voting for me. At that time, the mod did not specify how many actual votes were on me. So, we can't really tell if it was two or three at that time.

What's more common, somebody's vote counting double, or somebody getting a secret extra that doesn't have to link to their public vote?

[Rubric]

Guys, we'd better be sure that we want to lynch before starting to pile up votes, there's quite the possibility of unvolontary quick lynching.

Well, I obviously agree. Plus, when all the voting is for one person, you are giving the mafia a very easy place to hide. Doesn't anyone think it might be useful to put at least a couple of votes on somebody else? Or are you comfortable with all your peanuts in one bag?

I appreciate the players who have dropped off me for the time being, and was a little surprised at David pushing me to 4 votes (5 actually), which is in easy striking distance for an aggressive mafia.

I see Phoebus is still trying to drive the bandwagon toward me, without even bothering to vote or state any reason. So, (A) there is no voting record to make him look bad, and (B) by not stating reasons, he doesn't open himself to any scrutiny. I guess I should have followed his example, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb. I can definitely learn, though!

[Rubric]

Okay David, I won't vote for you either right now.

Unvote David
Vote Phoebus

, for three reasons:

1. For dismissing my arguments without comment. If you can't or don't explain your choices, you're just being sneaky.

2. For attempting to steer the train toward me without getting his fingerprints on it.

3. Ummmm, because I'm tired of having the most votes. Okay, so there are only two reasons....

[Rubric]

Re Rubric:

1) Uh, what?
2)

vote: Rubric

3) *yawn*

Heh heh, that's funny. But hopefully the rest of the group won't let you get away with it.

[Rubric]

Okay, by popular demand:

Nope, I'm definitely not a mason.

The story part is that I am just a lowly Peanut Vendor, who is sad because I am always in the stands, but never in the spot light. I am waiting for my big chance to take center ring and gain the applause of the audience. I have been with the circus longer than anyone, and over time, I have learned a little bit about all of your special jobs (except Masons, being that they're secret). So when somebody dies, I know enough to fill in temporarily.

Basically, when somebody dies, I become their role for one day/night, except that I cannot be a Mason ever. If there are multiple deaths, I receive a random one. Right now, I am the Clairvoyant, given Yggdrasil's death. Tomorrow I would probably be something else, if I lived.

I tried to give some hints before, but I was apparently too subtle. Too bad, because I assume a full claim means I'm pretty much dead as soon as night falls, if I even make it

that

far.

[Rubric]

Basically, when somebody dies, I become their role for one day/night, except that I cannot be a Mason ever.

If there are multiple deaths, I receive a random one.

Right now, I am the Clairvoyant, given Yggdrasil's death. Tomorrow I would probably be something else, if I lived.

Lee, that question is already answered in the description. In the event of two deaths, I get a RANDOM one.

Also, as far as getting the role the following night, I was NOT able to use the role last night. I get the role for one day/night cycle. To me, that implies that one or two of you have roles that are useable during the day (like the mystery extra vote).

Still, I like how you pretended to accept the claim at first, so that it at least

looks like

you are thinking about your vote carefully.

As for what the Clairvoyant does, it seems that I ought to keep some secrets, doesn't it? Or is everyone in agreement that I am dead meat one way or another so I should just tell all? I will say that Clairvoyant is probably not what you think it is (in other words, not the cop role).

[Rubric]

Still, I like how you pretended to accept the claim at first, so that it at least looks like you are thinking about your vote carefully.

Anyone who knows me knows I play hard in my mafia games. I gave your claim a lot of thought.

It was just a joke, anyway. I have no idea who the scum is, except probably Phoebus.

[Rubric]

Timid? Me?

What do you want me to do, Stewie? Wrestle a tiger?

I think you're over-reacting to the word "timid". The choice of words is not the issue. The problem is that you have been taking significant game actions without providing any reasons. To me, that's shady. But I appreciate that you're doing it less.

I'm going off on intuition on day 1. That's how I do minis.

Okay, so there's a reason. Unfortunately, "intuition" is completely untestable and unproveable. In other words, it's still the same problem -- utterly non-commital play style. Not that I really blame you, seeing as how any sort of affirmative statement can apparently get us lynched in this group. You're not the only one doing it.

I don't like the way Rubric is playing but I know you've won as the SK after being a benchwarmer.

I don't know what you mean when you say you don't like it. I hope you don't mean you are offended by something. If it just means that you think I am suspicious, then I guess I can say I don't like how you are playing either.

I dislike snap judgements...

This cracks me up, based on your previous actions in this game. Maybe they weren't "snap" judgments, but your lack of explanation sure made them seem that way.

Anyway, I appreciate you changing your vote. I will consider changing mine, but I'm leaving it where it is for now.

****

Unrelated point: I am going camping this weekend, and will

NOT HAVE INTERNET ACCESS until Sunday evening

(eastern time). This is more than 48 hours, so I am posting here as per the rules.

I don't really want to go, but I have been roped into it by my so-called friends. We'll be hiking through the Pennsylvania countryside, so I'm looking forward to 90 degree heat, miserable humidity, nothing but mud mud mud, and a large chance of thunder storms.

[Rubric]

I think you're over-reacting to the word "timid".

Let Stewie explain himself. Mmkay?

Regardless of how Stewie sees it, you were dodging the issue by jumping on the word "timid". I am well within my rights to call you on it.

I'm floored by your appreciation btw.

That was me trying to back off a little. Your tone, however, suggests that maybe I shouldn't be backing off.

I dislike snap judgements...

This cracks me up, based on your previous actions in this game.

Was that directed at you? No? Then never mind.

So now I'm only allowed to respond to things that are specifically addressed to me?

I guess I will just have to sit here and hope that somebody asks me about the fact that you have played this whole game (until recently) by either making snap judgments, or at least appearing to.

Kthxbye?

The condescending tone works better if you're actually

right

when you use it.

You're not.

Also, I'm not about to write a ten page essay on why I do, what I do on day one.

I recognize the hyperbole, but don't cloud the issue. Nobody is asking for an essay, just an explanation. One or two sentences would have sufficed.


I have made my points pretty clear I think, in past posts. I wasn't planning to dwell on it any further, but your whole response was so overly defensive (and FALSE) that I felt the need to respond.

[Rubric]

Well, I am an Escapologist

No offense, but it sounds fake. When I've been to the circus, I've seen clowns, peanut vendors, and even clairvoyants (or at least, "fortune tellers"). I've never even heard of an "escapologist". I don't even get the theme, let alone the ability. What is it, a Harry Houdini type thing?

probably are not going to believe it and lynch me anyway.

If you were really a townie, then you would still want to help us, even if you're going to die. I'm not necessarily saying you should reveal, though. One thing to keep in mind is that I might get your role tomorrow, if I survive that long. Maybe that affects your decision, I don't know.

If you want to lynch me go ahead, but you're gonna waste your lynch.

Not very persuasive, but in my experience this is a townie response slightly more often than a mafia ploy. It's certainly not conclusive either way, obviously.

I'm being lynched for offering a speculation that nobody proved wrong, when it would have been easy for a townie clown to come forward and put out the discussion.

Well, you're right about that part, which is why I'm not changing my vote yet.

[Rubric]

Rubric, you got anything for us?

Clairvoyant: Can observe someone at night, and see who killed them. Unfortunately, I chose to observe Phoebus thinking he was the most likely target, so I did not get a useful vision.

The way the Peanut Vendor/ Partial Role Replacer ability works, I am no longer the Clairvoyant. So:

So what does the Ringmaster do Rubric?

Well, I would prefer not to say, except that I assume it is already obvious based on what happened. The Ringmaster can "fire" somebody, taking them out of the game. If I fire an anti-town player, I am killed in the process.

Which means, If Rubric was telling the truth, the mod would have not given us such info.

When I inherit a role, it is temporary and apparently incomplete. With the Clairvoyant, I was not informed of Yggdrasil's first vision (possibly he didn't have one). With Ringmaster, I did not get the double vote. I have no details on this -- just that I know "a little bit" about all the circus jobs, and can fill in for whoever got killed. It did not occur to me yesterday that I wouldn't have the full role.

Check that, the mod erased Rubric, and not Phoebus.

Then the vote stands. Thanks, Mod, for helping us out here.

Please explain this, Lee. I didn't see the supposed typo, and have no idea what you're talking about.

The Mod did help us though, by saying it's "lynch or lose". That means that with 7 players left, there must be 3 scum instead of 2.

[Rubric]

I think Rubric should fire someone.

Unfortunately, I can't for two reasons:

1. It's a night action. Can't do it right now.

2. The numbers don't add up. If I wait until night, and then fire somebody, it would cost us the game if I fire a townie.

The only way I can use this ability is if we have are very sure the target is scum. I'm open to suggestion on this, but I don't think we have enough knowledge to make it worth the risk.

I don't know who the mafia is. My only hunch right now is that LML is probably pro-town. In my experience, when a player claims that somebody is scum based on a supposed Moderator slip-up (even when they're wrong), the person making that claim is almost always a townie. Could be wrong of course.

Can anyone explain what was the "typo" that Dybeck referred to? As far as I know, I do not have two votes, so I don't think LML is right about that.

[Rubric]

How does that in any way prove you're innocent?

It proves that

(a) - I'm a mason, and am MORE likely to be protown than you.
(b) - Have you EVER heard of a mason group with an SK and a Mafia member in it? MAKES NO SENSE.

It proves absolutely nothing, other than you planted an opportunistic code at the beginning of the game hoping that it might come in handy.

You could just as easily claim that you are a cop and you were signalling that you checked Phoebus with your Night 0 vision. This would let you back up a phony cop claim later in the game.

Or, if no suitable opportunities came up, you could just ignore it, and be fairly certain nobody would ever detect the code. There is NO basis on which codes of that nature prove anything.

I had thought you were safe before, but I'm almost positive I was wrong, now.

Brushhopper, I know you're scum, so you'll spin it in ANY way possible, but THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

That's all. IMHO, Stewie, Bushhopper and Rubric are your scum.

Nice deflection. I say the scum are you, mepmuff and Stewie.

Just some further info:

No one claimed cop. Our clarivoyant therefore was the likely cop. Why don't we ask Rubric about that?

Mepmuff claimed cop, which was (I think) towards the bottom of page 7. It was buried in the middle of a long post.

Is it believeable though? I find it very convenient that both of his checks turned out to be things we already know (supposedly he checked d_rouge and Phoebus). I can kind of understand checking Phoebus, but the fact that the other check just happened to be the only surviving player who is confirmed pro-town, is a little bit of a stretch.

[Rubric]

Summary of role claims:

Rubric: Peanut Vendor = Role Replacer (irrelevant at this point, since a mislynch ends the game. There will be no more roles I can inherit). Currently am Ring Master for one day/night cycle (can fire somebody, which is like vig kill, only I die if I fire a bad guy).

d_rouge: Escape Artist = blocks lynch of self (one shot, already used). Confirmed pro-town by moderator.

LML: Knife Thrower's Assistant = Mason, partnered w/ confirmed bad guy. Nobody else claimed Mason, so I assume that part is true. However, I see no reason to believe that he is pro-town. I had thought earlier that when a player cries "mod error", he is usually pro-town, but I don't believe it now. Two sets of Masons in a 12 player game, including one who is partnered with SK? I have never heard of pro-town and anti-town masons in the same grouping. It doesn't make any kind of sense, and completely defeats the purpose of the mason role. The only way it makes sense is if LML is scum.

Mepmuff: Juggler = cop. What does juggling have to do with being a cop? This strikes me as a false claim. We have no way to verify it, and the checks mep reported are conveniently useless to us. Mepmuff has actually been supporting/defending me (slightly), so this is not "retaliatory" suspicion.

JereIC: Fire breather and sword swallower (why two roles?) = blocks night kill of self (one shot). I assume this is self only, otherwise it's a one-shot doc. Also can't be verified, and the fact of having 2 different role names is weird.

Brushhopper: Strongman = vigilante. So we have two vigilantes, counting Ring Master? And an SK on top of it? That's an awful lot of night killing.

Stewie: Circus Owner = blocks lynch of anyone (one shot, no self use). I don't know what to make of this. Why do we have 2 lynch blockers? Then again, there are supposedly 2 vigilantes and 2 mason groups....


In fact, come to think of it, the fact that there are 2 of everything, makes mepmuff and jereIC stick out a little (and me, I guess), since we three are not "paired off" like everyone else.

[Rubric]

Does anyone else think that drouge's role is way too powerful? Either that, or he's lying. However, we do know that he can survive a lynch. I think lynching him is completly out of the question today because we are in a lynch or lose situation, but he should be considered later on.

d_rouge, PRO-TOWN ESCAPOLOGIST, is NOT LYNCHED!

Could we please lynch this scum who's still arguing against a mod confirmed innocent?

Don't scum usually pay more attention to the game than that? I think if Stewie was mafia, he would know that d_rouge is confirmed pro-town.

Then again, it could be one of those reverse psychology ploys.

[Rubric]

Right now I'm thinking JereIC and Stewie are scum and one of brushhopper, LML and Rubric. Having someone vig-kill JereIC is pretty useless, because if he doesn't die we don't know who was lying (if any).

I'm thinking jereIC is actually the

best

choice for vig kill. The thing is, if we vig kill a pro-town player, the game is over, just like if we miss a lynch. Using a vig kill on jereIC is a no-lose situation -- either we vig kill a lying scum, or he is telling the truth and we DON'T accidentally kill a pro-town player.

Mepmuff, I'm sort of thinking that you know this already, and are trying to steer us wrong.

I'm currently thinking we should let Rubric and Brushhopper have a go at eachother, but I'm not near certain that that would actually be the wisest course of action.

Bad idea for the same reason. We can't afford to night kill a pro-town player. If you are certain that one of us is lying, then maybe it makes sense. However, I don't see anything too weird about having a pair of vigilantes (since most of the other roles are in pairs), so I'm not convinced that Brush is lying.

To those who think my claim was false: I knew my targets were easy choices for a fake cop. That, and LML's wanting to claim last statement, is why I claimed first.

LML wanted to go last to try to catch scum falsely claiming to be the 4th mason. But why would any scum do that? I'm not sure what LML's game is, but I do NOT think he is pro-town. Maybe he isn't mafia, but is it possible he was playing on the same "team" as his partner, the SK? Given that we already have precedent for inheriting roles in this game, maybe LML is the new SK? Or maybe he has been another SK all along....

I'm tempted to cast my vote for LML now, but I'm still not 100%. He seems slightly more likely to be dangerous than Mepmuff.

[Rubric]

EVERYONE! WAKE UP!

Stewie and Rubric are definately scum. Here's why.

Stewie has been sitting at 2 votes for a long time. His first vote, of course, was by d_rouge, whom we KNOW IS PRO TOWN.

Since we're in a lynch and lose situation, it's simply that one wrong vote would lead to something called "a bandwagon jump"

I've only seen one bandwagon jump so far, and that was your (LML's) jumping on board with d_rouge's vote. When you consider that d_rouge's vote is based on nothing more than the fact that Stewie didn't recognize d_rouge's mod-confirmed status, it makes your bandwagon vote look very suspect.

Simply. If Stewie was innocent, he would have been lynched already, and the game would have been over based on that. The same goes for rubric.

I agree with Stewie -- it's a crap argument.

But let's test it out anyway:

Vote: Loudmouth Lee

By Lee's logic, if he does not get lynched, it proves that he is scum.

[Rubric]

The only safe target for vig kill and/or firing is jereIC. Since he claims he can avoid a night kill, there is no risk of losing the game by killing an innocent. He would only die if he is lying, in which case he is scum anyway.

Any other target makes us lose the game if we are wrong.

[Rubric]

Rubric: Like I stated before: If he survives we still don't know if it's because you/Brushhopper has been lying or JereIC telling the truth.

I agree, but the problem is that if we vig kill or fire an innocent, the game is over. We need to be very confident.

JereIC: Do you think you'll survive a double attack as well?

I thought he said it was a one-shot ability.

I expect to die tonight,

Maybe.... Then again, I have visions of you scratching your head tomorrow and saying "Gee, why didn't those scum kill me....?"

Perhaps we should devise two scenario's. One to be carried out if we lynch scum and one when we hit an innocent.

Well, as far as I can tell, the only way we can lynch an innocent and NOT lose is if we try to lynch d_rouge again, which we obviously won't do. I will of course listen to arguments, but I don't think we really need a plan for lynching an innocent. To me, that means game over.

I still have this nagging feeling that you are deliberately trying to get Brushhopper or me to vig kill the wrong person and end up losing the game. JereIC is the ONLY way we can be 100% sure that we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot, although personally I would be comfortable with firing LML (or for that matter, you) if anyone else agrees with that plan.

[Rubric]

LML is a mason for sure. It's just his being good that's not been ascertained.

I'll say again -- I've never seen a "good" mason and a "bad" mason on the same team. It defeats the whole purpose of having masons. It's not plausible for that reason.

I'm thinking more and more that Rubric made up the

dies if fires scum

and that our original ringmaster was just targeted by Phoebus.

Why would I make that up? If I were scum, how does it help me to claim that I

die

if I do something useful? That doesn't make any sense.

I did, however, tell one little fib about something. Hopefully this doesn't get me lynched, but with three people talking about voting for me, this game is almost over anyway since I am not scum.

The Clairvoyant was the cop role.

I lied on Day 1 and said it was NOT the cop role, because I didn't want the scum to kill me before I got my vision. I was going to reveal the truth at the beginning of Day 2, but instead I decided to see if anyone else would pretend to be the cop (much like LML wanted to see if anyone else would claim mason).

Sure enough, mepmuff has claimed to be a cop. So, which seems more like the cop role, a clairvoyant or a juggler? Or does anyone honestly think we have two cops in this game? If not, then mepmuff is clearly scum.

I've been saying all along that I don't believe his claim. I was hoping to get another scum to slip up, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I still think LML is scum. JereIC is the only one who seems remotely trustworthy right now (and d_rouge, of course).

[Rubric]

vote rubric

Now I know for sure....

Nothing has really changed. Honestly, if you inherited the cop role on Day 1, would you blurt it out? Of course not.... neither would I.

Yet, I was on the chopping block that day, and so I had to say something. Everyone was demanding a role claim. I'm certainly not going to say "Oh, fine, I'm the cop. Scum, kill me now."

Anyway, your knee jerk vote tells me for certain that there aren't two cops in the game.

The only reason I'm not changing my vote is because LML (aka Captain Bandwagon) is already jumping on board. (Joke, btw.) But since LML has 2 votes and has had them for a long time, he is proven to be scum by his own logic.

I hope the non-voters will choose carefully. Ask yourself whether you would have revealed the cop role on Day 1, or kept it to yourself.

[Rubric]

I'll say again -- I've never seen a "good" mason and a "bad" mason on the same team. It defeats the whole purpose of having masons. It's not plausible for that reason.

I have.. MANY times. Are you new to mafia?

New to the site. I've played 15 to 20 times elsewhere, and have never seen "evil masons". It's stupid. The whole point of masons is that you have a known safe player. It makes about as much sense as the Mod telling you that you're a doc, but then secretly deciding that you're NOT a doc. If you can't trust the Mod, then what's the point of playing? Masons are supposed to be TEAMS. There is no benefit to a good mason having an evil partner. I DO NOT believe it.

Lynch all liars. Jeep's mantra in action. He's scum and he's giving himself away.

Meh... I'm not "giving myself away", because I am pro-town. You, Mepmuff, and JereIC were all talking about lynching me anyway (for no reason that I can see). That means WE LOSE. I'm trying to save the game, here. The truth is that Yggdrasil was the cop at the beginning. I was the cop on Day 1/Night 2. Mep may have been a second cop, with magical juggling powers, but I seriously doubt it. I baited him by claiming that there was no cop in the game, and he bought it. That's all.

Not that you care, being that you and Mep are both scum. At least this game will finally be over....

[Rubric]

You admit you lied. Everyone else has a plausable role except for you. I have 2 votes on me because 2 of the scum is voting for me.

Again, you admit to lying. Do you REALLY want me to link you the the damn Mafia Wiki people?

Don't know what you're talking about. Are the "wiki people" like the mafia police or something? What's the big deal?

Also, listen Rubric:

I have only voted for 2 different people this day: You and Stewie. I just hope the people in the town come to their senses and listen to my pleas.

And, I hope they ignore your pleas and listen to mine.

Rubric, you have admitted to being a liar (changing your story about the clarivoyant), and are looking to SPIN a bandwagon on mepmuff.

Except that I'm not voting for mepmuff. I think he is most likely scum, but it's remotely possible that there are two cops.

Again, I'll repeat:

LYING TO THE TOWN IS A LYNCHABLE OFFENSE!

No, it's not. Lying is EXPECTED in order to protect the cop role -- it BENEFITS the village. Otherwise, cops would just out themselves at the first opportunity.

You're just trying to twist this to your own advantage. I'm sure all of us have seen it before.

[Rubric]

No, it's not. Lying is EXPECTED in order to protect the cop role -- it BENEFITS the village. Otherwise, cops would just out themselves at the first opportunity.

Keeping quiet is expected, lying is not. Especially when we al put our butts on the line in a mass claim. You should even have confirmation or know who's lying his ass off if you had an investigation (or was Phoebus that popular that night?).

Phoebus was acting strangely, and was the obvious choice. You said so yourself.

Instead, you waited while we all went through a pretty difficult day, which you could have made a lot easier if you were truthfull.

Possibly I should have said something earlier. But, I was fairly certain it would cause me to get lynched, and thus would not be that helpful. Plus, I figured you or LML would screw up sooner or later.

By the way, the day has not been all that difficult. Maybe it's just your guilty conscience weighing on you?

[Rubric]

This is a MetaGame ploy that is STRONGLY encouraged by -JEEP. Confusion and lies are two of the best weapons of the Mafia. Thus, it is generally bad play for pro-town roles to lie. In order to encourage GOOD play, the policy should be: Lynch anyone caught in a lie.

Hmm, that's interesting.

I doubt, however, that there are very many experienced players who buy into any set of meta-game guidelines that say "always do this" or "never do that". I certainly don't buy it. One of the most dramatic games I have been in involved a villager who falsely claimed to be Seer (cop) in order to protect the real one. Very exciting and fun.

It's not useful. It's just a way to avoid making a decision. If you "always" do something, then you don't have to think about it, don't have to be persuasive, don't have to worry if you're wrong, etc. I hope people will think this through instead of blindly adhering to the quoted dogma.

[Rubric]

First, the clarvoiyant is obviously an investigative role; c'mon, somebody who can see the future, and they're actually a plain townie or something? BS.

I don't understand your point. Yes, it's an investigative role. Sounds like we agree on that.

The true mystery is why the mafia didn't just kill you that night, if you are telling the truth.

Uhhh... that's why I lied about it. I think you're missing part of the explanation or something.

Second, cops always come out when they are pressed, or when they have mafia, because 99% of the time, there's a doc to protect them. This appears to be one of those very few games that don't have a doc, but you didn't know that at the time, so then the smart thing to have done would have been to come out, say you didn't get Ygg's results, and then ask for doc protection.

First of all, nobody "always" does anything in these games. Maybe that's how you guys play here, but over at BGG we actually think about how to play instead of just following rules of what you should "always" do.

I agree that cops frequently come out when they are pressed, but you guys weren't pressing very hard. The Day One bandwagon rarely hits its first target, so I was fairly confident I could divert it. There was no reason to give away all my secrets at that point. If I had drawn more votes, I would have.

Your failure to do this is absurd.

Something is absurd here, but not that.

Finally, you say you lied to lay a trap for scum. So, when this trap was sprung and mepmuff claimed a cop, why didn't you just come out and say Ygg was actually a cop, and you seriously doubted the presense of two cops? You've only changed your story now that you're in danger, not when mepmuff was starting to slide out of the lynch.

Was hoping to get another vision so I would know all 3 scum. It never seriously crossed my mind that people were going to believe LML's nonsense.

If I had guessed you were going to buy into it, I might have played differently and revealed earlier. But it seemed very transparent at the time.

I'm not voting yet, because I'm really suspicious about how quickly you got two (three?) votes right there.

Seems obvious to me. LML and mep want to kill me before the rest of the group has a chance to see my claim.

Only d_rouge can be trusted, so we need to hear from him.

[Rubric]

So, did you get a result (by PM) on phoebus?

I did not receive anything. I PM'd dybeck to ask why, and he responded by saying (paraphrased) that there was no mistake.

By the way, if you all could back off the knee jerk voting for a moment, is there any chance that there really are two cops? I think not, but I personally also think we ought to at least consider it.

Anyway, I have to get some work done. I will try to check in later and respond more if the game hasn't ended.

[Rubric]

What do you mean by getting another vision?

Oops.... DAMMIT!

I'll be lynched for sure, now. Can't even keep my own lies straight.

Okay, here's how it is: The peanut vendor / role replacer is a one-shot ability, like many of the other non-mason roles in this game. I was the Clairvoyant since the dawn of Day 1, and have always been the Clairvoyant. I have never been the Ringmaster.

I have made a couple of feints and dodges in order to avoid getting night-killed, because the Clairvoyant is a very useful ability. If you and your fellow scum knew that I had it, you surely would have killed me last night instead of killing Pbug. Right? Anyway, I was apparently way to paranoid about it, and managed to dig myself into a very deep hole.

Anyway, you guys were right about one thing -- I completely made up the whole Ringmaster thing. I have no idea what the Ringmaster does, although it would appear that he can fire people, and possibly dies when he does it. I don't know. I thought I was screwed when the Mod pointed out that the Ringmaster had the double vote, but somehow that blew over (which is partly why I thought I might get away with one more vision).

That's it. I'll just go stand over by the gallows.

Good or bad, you're at least putting a new level of fun into this game. Much appreciated

Oh thanks. I'm enjoying it too.

[Rubric]

Rubric, when I was saying it was obvious that clarvoyant is an investigative role, I mean there was no need to lie by denying it. It's like saying "I'm a detective" and then expecting the mob to think you aren't a cop. Basically, you claim you lied to hide your identity, but that is not effective, so I don't buy it.

Oh, I see. Well, if it's so obvious that Clairvoyant = Cop, then why is there so much disbelief now that I got it off my chest? And for that matter, what is so believable about Mepmuff, the amazing and talented "Juggling Cop"?

To me, the fact that the scum didn't kill me, proves that the ruse worked. You, of course, will say that it just proves I am scum. Oh well....

Any way, getting caught in your own web of lies is die-scum-die level incrimination. I'd follow through, but I think it's fair to let d_rouge get his say in first. D_rouge, what do you think, and how was Paris?

Yep. I made the stupid mistake of getting too tricky for my own good, and it cost us the game. Sorry all.

Just for the record, I am pro-town, and I am the Cop. Unfortunately, it's inevitable I will be lynched. Obviously, I would prefer NOT to be lynched, but I'm feeling very sheepish right now and have nothing else to say.

[Rubric]

You played well. Good job witstanding the barrage of questions I flooded you with.

NOW LYNCH THE SCUM!

Ahhh, the irony is killing me. Well, that and the noose.

[Rubric]

Except if one is scum and the mafia hits the other.

I think the mafia almost HAVE to hit one of the cops, right?

I think d_rouge is saying we should let the mafia tell us who is the real cop. If mepmuff is scum, the mafia will probably night-kill me. If I am scum, the mafia will probably night-kill mepmuff. Either way, tomorrow we have a dead cop and an almost certain known mafia.

Possible alternatives:

1. The scum don't kill either one of us, and instead go for the "confirmed" townie like they did yesterday. Well, in that case, they are giving the real cop (or possibly 2 real cops) a free check, which could be critical at this stage of the game.

2. There really are 2 cops, so the "survivor" is not really scum. This could be a problem, because you all will be strongly inclined to lynch the survivor for the reasons d_rouge suggested. But, it seems increasingly unlikely to me that we really have 2 cops, so I doubt this will be the issue.

I'm obviously biased in this situation, but I have to say this seems like a good plan to me. I don't think the two claimed cops should check each other, though -- that seems like a waste. If we're planning to lynch the survivor regardless, then we ought to discuss other checks.

[Rubric]

Won't they just both say they investigated the other, and found the other to be scum? For the "kill the survivor" strategy, mafia could very easily not kill either, to deny us information (especially if they each claim to check the other for scumminess, with aforementioned results).

Yeah, so NOT checking each other is the better plan. Or, at least not announcing publicly that we're checking each other.

Rubric, my only disbelief is your original claim.

Oh. Well, I don't know what to say then. Personally, the claims I find least believable are:

(a) the supposedly "good" mason teamed up with the known "bad" mason, and

(b) "Juggles", the amazing ambi-dextrous cop.

[Rubric]

Sorry for the double post.
Come on guys, Stewie is definitely scum. I'm using LML argument here: if he wasn't he would be so very dead right now since I'm a confirmed innocent and I got my vote on him since forever.

As I said when LML used that argument -- there is no logic to it. I can understand when LML says it, because he is scum. But when you make the argument, it doesn't make any sense.

Look at the fact that LML himself has had 2 votes on him for a long time. Doesn't that prove he is scum? In fact, both LML and I have had 2 votes for a long time, while Stewie has only had 1. Can you explain why Stewie's one vote means he is "definitely" scum, while LML's (and my) two votes does NOT mean that? Obviously the mere fact that the vote happens to be yours does not prove anything.

Then, if the ringmaster can fire people, why would there be a circus owner in the first place?

I agree that is thematically weird. The ability itself makes sense because it parallels your escape ability, and it appears that the mod included a number of similar or parallel roles.

Let's just lynch him and see what happens.

I would prefer to lynch LML and see what happens. If there is no consensus, I suppose I could vote for someone else. The only person who is a definite NO vote is d_rouge, although I think JereIC is most likely safe as well.

[Rubric]

Vote: Rubric

This is the first time mepmuff has expressed a willingness to vote.

Uhhh... no it's not. He had a vote on me for a long time. It's part of the reason for LML's argument that it "proves" I am scum.

I'm still very suspicious of mepmuff, and anyone he wants to lynch is somebody I don't.

See above. You do NOT want to vote for me.

I say we lynch the serial liar instead.

*sigh*

Whatever.

LML is lying. He just wasn't foolish enough to admit it. Silly me. I won't make the mistake of admitting it next time. I am sure that everyone in this game has, at one time or another (if not EVERY time) tried to distract the scum by claiming to NOT be the cop. That's ALL this is.

The whole idea that you should lynch the "liar" is just some nicely executed spin control by LML. I have to hand it to him -- this will be a fine victory.

[Rubric]

Good game everyone.

That was hard. You guys are definitely not easy to persuade.

As Mafia Godfather, I would appear as a townie if the cop ever checked me. So with that in mind, I thought it might be useful to draw a little controversy to myself on Day 1, hoping that the cop would check me out that night. The Day 1 bandwagon hardly ever hits its first target, so I wasn't really worried about it when I accumulated a few votes.

What hurt was the role claim. It's very difficult to make up a role in a themed game on a site where I've never played before (except for 1 newbie game), and where I have no idea what roles are considered standard. Judging by the mass role claim that occurred later, it appears that I put way too much detail into my claim. Everyone else had basically a 1 sentence claim, whereas I wrote several paragraphs. I thought that made me stick out like a sore thumb.

As for lying on Day 2, well obviously I had an agenda. I don't actually believe townies should lie to the town (although the automatic lynch-them-if-they-lie rule is still a bad guideline, as are any "automatic" rules).

I was going to stick with my role claim, and not lie, even though the Mod through me a curve ball with the comment that the Ringmaster had the double vote. I wish that wouldn't have been revealed, but I thought I could still hold the course. Then, when I saw votes mounting against me, I had to try a desperation play, so I decided to claim that I had lied about my role, and that I was really the cop. I didn't really expect it to work, and of course it didn't.

When I saw how badly the first lie was received, I decided to tell another one, hoping that one or two of you might think "Geez, he can't be *that* stupid.... He must really be trying to come clean." Yeah, right.... Tough crowd!

Anyway, I'll say again -- good game all. I wonder what would have happened if we had killed LML after Day 1, instead of Pbug. I advocated hitting LML or Phoebus since those two were giving the most trouble, but the group decided to go with one of the confirmed townies instead. That was probably the best bet, but I would have liked to see what would happen if I didn't have to contend with LML on Day 2.

Counting my newbie game, I now have 1 win and 1 loss at this site, playing mafia both times. See you next time.

[Rubric]

JereIC - Standard doctor. And apparently, accomplished liar.

I thought something was fishy about that claim, but since I knew JereIC wasn't mafia, I wasn't really concerned about it. I tried to point some suspicion his way, but nobody would listen to me by that point.

Good job Jere -- but wait... townies aren't allowed to lie, are they?

mepmuff - standard cop. Undercover as a juggler - although this was completely arbitrary.

Another one that seemed suspicious to me.

Yggdrasil - clairvoyant. 50% chance of looking into his crystal ball and seeing all people targeted by and targeting their night choice.

Yikes! I guess we lucked out with the Night 0 kill choices. Isn't this kind of the same as saying "50% chance each turn that the town suddenly wins".

Thanks for playing everyone - I hope you had some kind of fun.

Yep, definitely was a fun game.

I think Man of the Match awards are fun - I gotta hand this one to LmL. He had the names of the mafia pretty much down - from a real early stage.

Can we just lynch him one time? For fun? Please....?

Vote LML