Mini 333 Street Racing Mafia {Game Over!}

[Yosarian2]

Dude, someone got dirt on my car!! You're goin down!

Dude, where's your car?

[Yosarian2]

What's wrong with switching random votes?

[Yosarian2]

What's wrong with switching random votes?

Nothing, I just wanted to vote

Ok. I wasn't sure if you thought that was an actual scum tell or if that was supposed to be a joke vote on your part.

[Yosarian2]

I don't have a car so I think yours wins by default.

Ummm...it was made pretty clear in my role PM that the good guys are true racing enthusiasts, and the bad guys are not. And you don't have a car?

[Yosarian2]

No, I saw that. After your post, you looked at the mod's post noticed we all have cars. Which makes me still wonder if perhaps your role PM didn't mention (or perhaps only briefly mentioned) you having a car, which I would find very interesting.

[Yosarian2]

Actually, ignore that last post. I just re-read my role PM, and I'm thinking that perhaps it could be misunderstood. Never mind.

[Yosarian2]

The thing lthat looks scummy is those freaky little things on you avatar! What the crap are they?

Mikeburnfire, the word is, oviously, that Mariyta's gonna get voted for being so defensive.

Unvote, Vote: Mariyta

Because she's looking scummy,

and

for suggesting a second bandwagon. So why not have a third?

Being so defensive?

Someone said she looked scummy and voted for her, she asked "how do I look scummy"? And that counts as being scummily over-defensive for you?

vote:atticus

I don't buy it.

[Yosarian2]

Hey Yos. You're not scum again, are you...? Nah..... that would make me your scumbuddy.

Well, logically, I can't ALWAYS be scum...right?

[Yosarian2]

What I don't buy is your logic, Atticus. What was it about Mariyta's posting that looks overly defensive to you?

Because right now, it looks like that might have just been an excuse to bandwagon, which is scummy.

(And my comment to Mike was a joke, obv.)

[Yosarian2]

As for Mariyta's "defensiveness", she says,
"Everyone always says that. What is it about me that looks "scummy"? Is it trying to have fun?" As a kind of, "You're stupid, I'm just having so much fun I don't care about how scummy I look." Which is ... In my opinion, a way to cover up any guiltiness of being scum. And also, it seems like she's saying, "I'm the only one who gets called scummy, give me some slack." As though she doesn't realize that that happens to everyone. It just seems to me like she's trying to play stupid, haughty, and innocent right now.

Someone said she looked scummy and voted for her, and she said "What is it about me that looks scummy?" Do you really think that's overly defensive? And your "interpretations" of what she said are...well, a bit of a streach, to say the least.

So, yes, it was an excuse, but it wasn't a bad one. It was a valid one, in my opinion, and excuses don't need to be fake.

Townies look for reasons to vote, scum look for excuses to vote. You see the difference? It dosn't look like you're trying to find scum, it looks like you're looking for an excuse to vote, which is what I find suspicious.

[Yosarian2]

Mariyta, there it is. And let me tell you again, seeing as this hasn't seemed to breach yours or Yosarian's mind, I did not call you overly defensive!! That was Yosarian, who accused me of saying that, when I did not.

Mikeburnfire, the word is, oviously, that Mariyta's gonna get voted for being so defensive.

Unvote, Vote: Mariyta

It looks to me like one of the reasons you were attacking Mariyta was because she was being "so defensive". So what do you mean, you never called her overly defensive?

[Yosarian2]

Well, Mariyta, thank you for finally clearing that up, even though I do not beleive you.

Thank you Yosarian, thank you for saying that, needed someone else to say it.

I never said overly-defensive,

do you guys not read what the heck I said?? Yosarian keeps saying it, I said so defensive. But you guys don't even quote me right!

Look, you can quibble about semantics if you want to, but you still haven't at all answered my question.

If you would rather say you voted for her partly because she was "so defensive" instead of "over-defensive", then fine, although I don't see the difference. So what was it she said that was so defensive you wanted to vote for her?

I am defending, as far as I can see, not attacking. I am pushy on Mariyta because I beleive she's scum, she did not answer until I pushed it in her face and because she's taken everything way too quickly. These have been causing her to slip. Now, I'm sure, that when we lynch Mariyta, if she's not scum, Yosarian is. I don't know why.

And this kind of thing is part of the reason I'm so suspicious of you. You totally misrepresent what people say in order to attack them, you argue about semantics instaed of explaining what it was you meant, and now you're trying to set up a false dillemma.

[Yosarian2]

Now,

from

that, it has matured, considering yours and Mariyta's attakcs, to a large consideration that one of you is scum.

You keep saying this. Why?

At this point in the game, without much else to go by, a big part of what I mostly look for is people who attack other people using questionable logic, which is why I voted for you. I really don't have a read on Mariyta's alignment right now at all, and I'll admit that worries be a bit because if she does turn out to be scum people might misinterpret my actions today as defending her.

But why are you so sure that one and only one of us is scum? That dosn't make sense. Why are you so convinced that I'm not just someone looking for scum the best as I can on day 1?

I'm asking because saying "either person X or person Y is scum" without reason is itself a scum tell; scum like to set up situations like that in the hopes that when person X turns out to be a good guy person Y will get lynched, or vice versa. So, do you have a reason?

[Yosarian2]

This is the one thing that really pisses me off with Mafia games, SO often, the scum just sit back and don't post and the only people that get picked off are the ones that bother to post.
Stay with the Atticus vote but please people, keep your eyes on the lurkers!

Hey, I'm always up for a good round of kick-the-lurker. Anyone specifically you want to put some anti-lurker-pressure on?

[Yosarian2]

I don't like the way DG's jumping to conclusions here. Still, though, jumping to conclusions that "If A is scum B is scum" for no apparent reason is less suspicious, to me, then saying "If A is NOT scum then B is scum" for no apparent reason, the way Atticus did, because saying that can get two townies lynched. And despite me asking him twice why he said that, he just ignored my questions.

, I'm sure, that when we lynch Mariyta, if she's not scum, Yosarian is. I don't know why.

Now,

from

that, it has matured, considering yours and Mariyta's attakcs, to a large consideration that one of you is scum.

Unless he can give some logical explination for these comments (he has not done so yet), my guess is that he was hoping to get Mariyta lynched, knew she would come up town, and then hoped to use that "logic" to get me lynched. In other words, unless Atticus is willing to explain himself, I'm going to have to assume he's scum.

[Yosarian2]

(Edit by way of post:Looking back at my posts, turns out I only asked Atticus once and the other time I just pointed out it was a false dilemma without actually asking about it specifically, instead of asking him twice like I thought. Not that it changes anything, just figured I'd better correct my error before someone jumped down my throat over it.)

[Yosarian2]

It sounds like everyone has a car, and I doubt that the types of car has anything to do with alignment, so if we had a mass car claim, and everyone told the truth, it probably wouldn't tell us anything, unless someone has some kind of odd role that only effects foreign made cars or something silly like that. Any kind of mass claim would probably be at best a waste of time.

[Yosarian2]

But if it came down to voting either Spamwise or Atticus, I think I'd prefer to forfeit today's lynch.

Um, what? You're so convinced of both of their innocece that you'd rather have a no-lynch then lynch EITHER of them? On day 1, I'd have to have a really strong reason to believe someone was a GG in order to choose a no-lynch over lynching them, do you have a reason to think they're both good guys?

Yosarian is kinda as well. He's been going after Atticus strongly, but neglecting anyone else.

I think Atticus is fairly likely to be scum, likely enough to be a good lynch, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind about that. When I think I've found probable scum, of course I'll focus on them, to draw attention to them and force them to defend themselves.

[Yosarian2]

I still am most suspicious of Atticus's current behavior. For example, I don't like the way he seemed to defend spamwise while still voting for him:

I think both me and SpamWise are easy lynches at this point, Mariyta, SpamWise has a valid point, at least, reasonable, if not valid.

But kept his vote on spamwise. In his next post, he said:

I think Mariyta is getting what she deserves now, and she's being pretty suspicious, but I can't bring myself to vote for her, I mean, yeah.

And still kept his vote on Spamwise.

So he's sort-of defending spamwise, sort-of attacking Maritya who was the #2 bandwagon, and yet keeping his vote on Spamwise?

I understand the Spamwise bandwagon as well, and it makes sense, but my vote is going to stay on Atticus, at least for now.

[Yosarian2]

Good job, Yosarian! I had already done to her what is being done, voting her with little reason, I see no reason to do it again, unless she's being more suspicious than SpamWise. It's nice of you to copy SpamWise. It's not nice of you to not pay attention. I'm not defending Spamwise, I showed Mariyta how she was wrong.

There is no reason why I wouldn't keep my vote on SpamWise, but you keep saying that, as though its wrong. You're just quoting as though you're smart, and only because you think I'm scum, you think you have a valid point. But there's no reason to vote you, you're just ... way scummy, to me, in my eyes ( but who cares about what my eyes see?) Not merital of even an FoS to me, but just a correction.

And that's okay.

I certanly was paying attention. And I'm certanly not "copying spamwise"; if I remember correctly, I think I was suspicious of you before he was. I'm just pointing out that you keep giving me more and more reasons to doubt you.

Now, if person A attacks person B, and you vocally disagree with person A's attack, then you are defending person B. Period. If you thought spamwise was scum, why would you try to counter other people's attacks on him? Just dosn't make sense; it looks like you were trying to have it both ways, which is a scum tell.

[Yosarian2]

Bah. Fine. I still think there's a good chance he's scum, but no sense lynching a claimed doc day 1 without something more solid.

unvote:atticus

vote:spamwise

, as he was my #2 suspect. If you've got any good reason why you shouldn't be lynched, spamwise, like a claim or a defense or a reason why someone else would be a better lynch, you've got less then two days to give it.

[Yosarian2]

I voted him early to distance myself from him, but got uneasy when a bandwagon started to form from DG and FD.

That makes no sense. Maons never try to "distance" themselves from each other; scum do that so that when one gets lynched, the others don't look bad. There's no logical reason for a mason to do that; the most useful thing masons have going for them is that they can later back up each other's claim and not get lynched, and voting for each other just makes that harder.

(sigh)

Still, I guess lynching the claimed mason is probably still not a good idea. I want to get confirmation from Spamwise before the day ends, because I don't entirely trust this mason claim either, but for now

unvote:spamwise

Guess, with no time left, the only good option at the moment is to

vote:Mariyta

Unless someone has a better idea of who to lynch, and can put together a better bandwagon in the next day and a half.

[Yosarian2]

That makes no sense. Masons never try to "distance" themselves from each other

I've been trying to prevent my role from being revealed, obviously.

Still makes no sense. No one's ever said "Gee, he didn't vote for person A, he must be masons with him."

[Yosarian2]

Mariyta: if you give us a reason to re-consider lynching you, and kind of reason, and it sounds like we might be able to ask for a deadline extension of a few days to figure out who'd be a better lynch. If you don't, you've got 43 hours to live.

[Yosarian2]

I would have to disagree.

The point you seem to be missing here is that masons always have to claim eventually, and voting for a mason partner hurts your ability to do that. For example, if spamwise had died, and you had claimed in the endgame to be his mason partner, I would have looked back, saw your vote, not believed you, and lynched you.

This situation is a little different, so long as Spamwise confirms your claim we've at least got something to work with; if one of you dies, the other is clear, and a fake claim in this situation seems unlikely anyway. Still, it's just not something that good guy masons should do, for good reason, and that makes me doubt a little bit.

[Yosarian2]

I'm quite confused. Why won't SpamWise confirm that he's a mason along with mikeburnfire (if he really is)?

He's apparently not a mason with mikeburnfire, at least not right now....

Mike, I think you need to explain yourself, now.

[Yosarian2]

Um...I've got to say that, while Mariyta's mason claim seems odd, I don't believe Mike's claim at all right now. I'm not sure what to think; my best guess actually is that Mike might even be a townie trying to pull some stupid gambit, but Mike saying he's a mason with spamwise and spamwise not confirming it makes no sense. Also, it's really darn bizzare that Mike seems to believe Mariyta's claim.

Mike, I think you're going to have to explain yourself today if we are to avoid risking a mislynch of a mason.

For now,

unvote:Mariyta

, and

mod:could we have an extension please?

[Yosarian2]

I'm really tempted to vote for Mike until he explains himself, but I'm having trouble seeing how his actions could make sense as a scum, so I'll give him a chance to explain himself. If he dosn't explain himself before the end of the day, though, I might vote for him.

Also, Mariyta, a few questions. Are you part of a "normal" mason group? To clarify: If your mason partners wanted to, could they confirm you right now? (not necessarally saying they should right now, but I want to get this onto record to be helpfull later). Are you 100% sure they know you're a mason with them? And did you have a chance to talk with them night 1?

For now, I think I'll focus on the people who haven't claimed mason or doc, so we'll have somewhere else to go if we decide not to go after any of them today and so we don't get stuck with a no-lynch or a last minute speedlynch.

Unfortunatly, looking back over the posts of Primate, Dodgy, DrippingGoofball, Coron, FierceDeity, Erotomachia, and ChannelDelibird, I don't really see anything that looks to me like a clear, strong scumtell. The only thing I've found so far that might be a scumtell is that I don't like the way ChannelDaibird confirmed voted right after the mason claim, said he thought she was just "taking advantage of the confusion" (which dosn't make a lot of sense; why would someone be more likely to fake a mason claim right after someone else claimed?) and then said that "he hoped he was making the right choice here". Not a strong scum tell, but it dosn't look right to me, and it's all I've got at the moment.

vote:channeldaibird

, although if someone else has a better idea I'd love to hear it.

[Yosarian2]

So...wait...did you send each other PM's saying hi before day 1 started, or did you not talk yet at all? Or can you talk during the day?

[Yosarian2]

It was during the confirm stage. I thought that was ok. If it's not, I apologize. Like I said, this is my first time being a mason.

Ok, thanks for answering all my questions. I just wanted to get everything cleared up.

Think about it - there's just been a confusing mason claim where his mason buddy doesn't know he's a mason buddy (yet, or whatever). It's as good a time as any for scum to come in and say 'hey, that makes no sense because I'm a proper, non-confusing mason that everyone can relate to' (obviously not worded that way). However, I concede that I was a bit hasty. Still keeping my vote on Mariyta for now but that's definitely no longer a confirmed vote.

Well, I think that, with her claim as it now stands (with the claim she's already talked to mason partners and they know she's a mason and everything), there's a very, very high chance we'll be able to either confirm or disprove the claim at a later date when we want her mafia partner to come out, which means she's probably not a good lynch for today.

Mike's "claim", however, is so confusing I'm not sure if we'll be able to know for sure if we can confirm it or not based on what we know now.

Mike, are you 100% sure that Spamwise will be able to confirm your claim tommorow?

[Yosarian2]

(laughs) I did say mafia partner instead of mason partner one time, didn't I? I guess my subconsious dosn't really trust her yet.

[Yosarian2]

Um...so now you're claiming to be a cop with an innocent on spamwise?

O...k...

Except, then why did you vote for him? That makes even LESS sense...

[Yosarian2]

I have an idea.

Why not lynch SpamWise?

This will serve three purposes.

(1) Authenfication of MBF's claim. More likely than not, he is clumsily protecting his scumbuddy. In the off chance that's it's not the case, we won't have lynched our cop.

(2) If SpamWise turns up town, and I doubt he will, then we can have more faith in MBF's results.

(3) We would avoid pressuring the real cop, if there is one, to counterclaim.

I really doubt MBF is scum protecting his partner. That would make no sense; if he was, why wouldn't spamwise have said "yup, MBF's my mason partner!"

I think Spamwise is probably innocent. If mike is scum, then this whole bizzare buisness was most likely an attempt to link himself to an innocent. If mike is cop, then spamwise is innocent. Either way, i think spamwise is a bad lynch.

[Yosarian2]

A random lynch is better then a no-lynch, so if nothing changes between now and the deadline, I might have to switch my vote over to DG to get her up to 4 votes, enough for a deadline lynch. We clearly should not lynch Mariyta today, Atticus also seems like a bad idea, and I don't really think Spamwise is scum so I'm not going to support his lynch today, but almost anyone else might be worthwhile.

[Yosarian2]

A naieve day-cop? Heh, that'd be pretty evil.

[Yosarian2]

Well, somewhat more evil, as a day-cop would probably wait until someone was under suspicion and then investigate him; which means a naive day-cop would, very, very often, end up defending scum just as they were close to getting lynched.

[Yosarian2]

And I'm not comfortable with Spamwise jumping so quickly on the Primate bandwagon.

We've got no time. Any good guy, at this point, should be more then willing to jump onto any half-decent looking bandwagon in the hopes of putting one together fast enough to give the bandwagonee a chance to defend himself.

[Yosarian2]

I forgot we had a deadline coming up. Bah. I guess I'll have to decide between DGB and Primate.

Well, if you see some reason why you think someone else would be a better lynch, say so, we've should have enough time to get 4 votes on someone else. Otherwise, though, joining a bandwagon might be a good idea.

Anyway, it looks like I've got no support right now for a bandwagon on Channel, so I might as well put my vote somewhere more useful. Looking back at their posts, I like DGB's participation more then Primate's.

unvote

vote:Primate

[Yosarian2]

Mike's actions don't make any sense, but this is one of those cases where I think "lynch all liars" is a bad plan. All of his irrational seeming behavior came at a time when no one was voting for him, in order to defend spamwise; I would expect scum to just sit back and stay out of the way on day 1, no matter what spamwise's alignment was. Might take another look at mike later if spamwise turns out to be scum, but I don't really think he will.

If anything, Atticus, if we were going to lynch someone who has claimed a power role, I'd rather lynch you then Mike, because I think it's more likely that you're a lying scum. Still, I don't think lynching any claimed power role is a good move today.

[Yosarian2]

Geez...HERE's the game...I've been going crazy for days trying to find street racer mafia; totally didn't realize the mod had changed the name of the thread. (sigh)

[Yosarian2]

So, right now, we're basically just waiting for Mike's investigation?

Hmmm...you know, if he got an innocent, that might be enough for us to win in and of itself.

There's still a lot of assumptions; we don't know if Coron was killed by a vig or a SK, for example. However, if there is only 1 scum kill per night, then with 9 people, the magic number is 5; 5 confirmed innocents equals a guarenteed town win unless we do somthing dumb like fail to lynch one day or something. With 2 investigations, a claimed day cop, a mason, and at least one mason partner, that would make 5 people.

Like I said, a lot of assumptions here, a lot we don't know yet. But I think we might be in a really good place here, even without a doc.

[Yosarian2]

I agree totally with what you said in your post Yos but I can't help thinking that such an insightful and helpful text like that is scum feeling good about their kill and feeling good about being the first to add something beneficial to the game.
Sorry mate but I have to

FOS: Yos

After all, Mick said it might take a week to get a result, so I say we play on, even though I do totally agree with you Yos.

Um, you're FOSing me for being insightfull now?

We might not have much to talk about until the investigation comes back, but that dosn't mean we shouldn't find something to talk about.

[Yosarian2]

I agree Yos and it pains me but thats the feeling I got from your post.
I'm not saying for sure that i think you are scum but something about you post alarmed me.

Yup, thinking about game stratagy and posting are both clearly scummy.

[Yosarian2]

If Mike hasn't turned in an investigation target, I suggest Yos.

Trying to direct the cop, hmmm?

fos:maritya

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) It's inherently suspicious to me when a person tells a top to investigate someone I, personally, know to be innocent. It's not a huge scum tell, especally in the circumstances, but it is a scum tell nonetheless, because scum would love to make sure the cop investigates someone who's not them whenever possible. Note that I didn't vote her because of it, because I understand that it's what we've been talking about; nonetheless, telling the cop "Investigate person X!" is an inherently scummy act, and I thought I needed to point that out.

Now, I've got no problem with Mike investigating me. In fact, if Mike could investigate me tommorow, then that confirm my innocence, and let me share information I have. If we don't hit scum today, and Mike is still alive, then he should investigate me tommorow, that should give the town enough info to guarnetee a town win.

[Yosarian2]

Well, we don't actually know mikeburnfire is sane yet, right? He could still be naieve, as all he's gotten so far is innocents.

At this point I am sure Mike's a good guy, but I'm not sure we know he sanity; in fact, I have a very specific reason to suspect there might be as high as a 50/50 chance he's naieve.

[Yosarian2]

Well, we don't actually know mikeburnfire is sane yet, right? He could still be naieve, as all he's gotten so far is innocents.

At this point I am sure Mike's a good guy, but I'm not sure we know he sanity; in fact, I have a very specific reason to suspect there might be as high as a 50/50 chance he's naieve.

Please elaborate, because it will change strategy drastically....

I'm not going to elaborate today. Just something to keep in mind.

[Yosarian2]

How on earth do you expect us to make an informed decision if you refuse to tell us why you think Mike is 50/50 naive???

Unvote, Vote: Yos

because I think he's full of crap.

(Note: I didn't say "50/50". I said "could be as high as 50/50". It's probably lower then that.)

I thought I would point out the possibility that he might be naieve, which Coron also mentioned yesterday, so we as a town don't make false assumptions that could end up costing us the game. Yes, I do have a role-based reason to think that it's somewhat more likely that Mike is naieve then in a normal game, and no, I will not give the reason why today. Sometimes it is best for the town to not share role-based information, and this is one of those times.

Honestly, I don't really care if you believe me or not at the moment. For now, it's probably best to proceed on the assumption that Mike is probably likely a sane, good guy cop. Just keep the thought that he might be naieve in the back of your mind, and depening on how the numbers game goes, I'll probably give more information tommorow. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

If Mike is naive, it means he has to be wrong about FD AND Spamwise. I don't believe that's true. The likelihood of having 4 scum (and him hitting both right off the bat) is extremely small. So, until I have a reason to believe he's wrong, I must believe Yos is a) scum, or b) naive himself.

No, not at all. As Mike pointed out, a naieve cop is one who ALWAYS gets an innocent result, no matter if the target is guilty or innocent. So if a naive cop investigates a good guy, he gets the correct result. FD and Spamwise might both be good guys, and that still wouldn't tell us if Mike is naieve or not. We won't know his sanity for sure until he gets a guilty result.

[Yosarian2]

I thought I would point out the possibility that he might be naieve, which Coron also mentioned yesterday...

Heh. I forgot Coron was scum for a minute there.

All right. Well, at the very least, we know Mike's investigation yesterday is a good guy. No way a scum would bring up the possibility of a cop being naieve

if the person the cop got an innocent on was a scum

. We still don't know Mike's sanity, but I'm 100% convinced Mike's a good guy at this point, and I'm also convinced his investigation yesterday is a confirmed good guy.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian, I seriously doubt you have any new information. However, if you are going to keep it a secret then so be it. If you are still alive tomorrow, then you can tell us your information before we lynch you. If you are dead, then the next best lynch would be our claimed vig.

That's fine, if it's relevent tommorow I'll be glad to talk about it tommorow.

Honestly, it's quite likely you'll end up dead tonight, being a claimed cop with a dead doc, and if we're lucky the mod will reveal your sanity in the death scene.

[Yosarian2]

So Yos, it can't be that important, cos the main beneficiary roles to the town have already been claimed and killed, so what is it?

What? What makes you think that all the main pro-town roles have already claimed? How can you possibly expect to know this?

At this point, I'm starting to think you're pressing me for information just because of the fact that me giving any more information today would hurt the town. There is

NO REASON

for me to say any more today; we're clearly not going to lynch any of the people mike got an innocent investigation on today, so therefore it makes no difference at this point.

The fact that you're pressing for more information, when there is no logical reason why more information on this question to help the town right now, makes no sense to me. I've already said that I'll probably be able to say more tommorow. Why is that so hard to accept?

[Yosarian2]

Alright, it's time to claim.

The reasn I was worried Mike might be naieve was because I am also a cop, and it seemed unlikely that there would be two sane cops in a game this small.

Night one I investigate Coron, and got an innocent. Turns out, that's because he was the Godfather. (Funny story about that...something day 1 he said looked suspicious, so forgetting for a moment that it was this game I had investigated him, I started to attack him in post 44; then about 5 minutes later I remember he was the person I got an innocent on, and so in post 45, in a rather clumsy way, I "un-attacked" him. Boy, did I feel silly. Turns out he was scum after all. )

For obveous reasons, I didn't trust Mike's day 1 claim, so I investigated him night 2, and got innocent. At this point, with me having gotten two innocents and him having gotten two innocents, I figured that one of us might be naieve. That's also why I said I was 100% sure he was a good guy; if I was sane, he was clearly a good guy, and if I was naieve, then there should be another sane cop in which case he was probably telling the truth. So I said I was 100% sure he was a good guy, but that there might be as high as a 50/50 chance he was naieve (because I thought it likely that one of us was).

Anyway, last night I got a guilty result, probably the last scum, so I know I'm not naieve. As my mike result was correct, and I've now gotten both guilty and innocent answeres, I am now convinced that I am sane.

Last night, I got a guilty on Dripping Goofball. She is driving a gray Ford F-150, with a machine gun and spikes sticking out of her tires. She is a hitman.

vote:dripping goodball

[Yosarian2]

I didn't realise that if someone was a Godfather, they come up as innocent under investigation.
New one on me.

Yeah, they usually do.

From the wiki: https://www.mafiascum.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/All_Roles

Godfather

The Godfather is a common addition to the Mafia family. The Godfather heads the family, and is in charge of sending victim choices to the Moderator. Also, the Godfather appears innocent to Cops. In games with multiple families, the Godfather may also be immune to being killed at Night.

[Yosarian2]

Good game, all.

Thanks for giving me a bit of leeway yesterday, town; I really wanted to claim today instead of yesterday, both because I thought I might be the only sane cop, and because if there were two claimed cops someone might jump to the wrong conclusion that "one of them must be lying scum!" which could have become a real mess, especally as I was sure Mike was a good guy.

[Yosarian2]

Wow....we got just absurdly lucky with those cop investigations, didn't we.

So, there was 1 sane cop and 1 insane cop, and 5 GG's that looked evil and 1 BG that looked good to cop investigations. For all practical purposes, we may as well have had 2 random cops. And except for coron, all the investigations turned out ok. Heh.

[Yosarian2]

TWO cops???

Criminy! I was alone against two cops???

You didn't do so bad, Primate, but when you put that second vote on me when we were deadlined, and 4 votes were a lynch, and no one really suspected me, it left me in an awkward position: either allow myself to be lynched, or deflect attention onto someone else. Since your logic for voting for me was fatally flawed, I had no choice but to turn the Town against you, in the hope that I would look more innocent.

But against two cops, it was an uphill battle.

Heh...you're just unlucky I investigated you instead of Mike. If Mike had investigated you, you might have won.

All in all, the setup with all the millers and insane cops and stuff seems to have been extremly luck dependent.

[Yosarian2]

So...why did that make you suspicious of me?

[Yosarian2]

Eh...Godfathers are not always unkillable. In fact, a "true" Godfather (both unkillable and immune to investigations) is rare these days, most Godfathers I've seen are only one or the other, not both.

[Yosarian2]

I enjoyed watching this game being played, but I really think it was mostly pointless setup. And bad. But good job town. It was definitely slated against the mafia though.

Actually, I agre that the setup was not good. I wouldn't say it was slanted towards the town, though; we just got absurdly lucky.

For example, if Mike had investigated me yesterday, the town would probably have lost. He would have said "Yos is guilt", in which case I would have been lynched; when I showed up as the cop, then either Mike would have been lynched, or if the town decided he was insane, the person Mike confirmed innocent day 1 would have been lynched. The town would basically have been screwed no matter what.

Or if Mike had investigated Dripping Goofball, and got innocent, I probably would have investigated one of the millers, like FD, and got guilty...again, the town probably would have lost horribly. Miller lynched, folled by me lynched, with DG still a confirmed good guy=probable town loss.

The game was pretty much determined completly by luck.