Mafia 42: Italian - Game over!

[JSexton]

d30 says

vote LyingBrian

[JSexton]

Ohnoes! I've been caught!

[JSexton]

As Vesuvan climbs out of bed he find a large lump on his head and has a terrible headache. His speach is slow and poor and he will only be able to say 25 at one time.

::points and laughs::

How very, very appropriate. And crippling.

[JSexton]

VOTE: LyingBrian

Random vote. We lost a doctor and gunsmith[im assuming the gunsmith is part of the town], thats a heavy hit.

Hey, aren't you dead? Shaddup you face.

That also means there's only 4 votes on LyingBrian.

[JSexton]

If lying brian is scum I'm looking at JSexton next.

'Kay.

...

You know I'm voting for him, right?

[JSexton]

Just sayin'. Doesn't matter much to me, since it's a random vote anyway.

[JSexton]

Fritz, explain the JSexton thing??

I'm glad that was unclear to someone else as well.

Unless I was supposed to get super defensive and slip up revealing my scum hat oh no i've said too much.

[JSexton]

Fritz, explain the JSexton thing??

I originally had a real theory, but I can't remember it, so I'm just gonna say because he stays up at night slaughterin townies.

No, I don't.

I do it early, then I can be in bed by 9:00.

[JSexton]

Let's lynch someone already! Let's see somebody swing!

unvote, vote: Gonzo

for bloodthirstiness.

[JSexton]

Let's lynch someone already! Let's see somebody swing!

unvote, vote: Gonza for bloodthirstiness.

Did you think we were having tea and crimpets??

No. I did think we were trying to find scum, though, as opposed to stringing up random people willy-nilly.

[JSexton]

unvote

.

Thinking.

[JSexton]

Hahaha @ zu...

Damned if I do, damned if I don't, I guess?

That happens a lot when you're scum. Townies don't mind taking a stand.

[JSexton]

vote: Illumina

. Of your six posts, I see 6 separate scum tells of varying intensity. After that, you mostly lurked.

Yeah.

[JSexton]

Okay - care to elaborate on those?

Figured you'd ask.

I'll go with a general no lynch vote for now

The most obvious. Why on earth would you consider this a good idea? Big tell.

I was actually tempted to vote for Lying (would have saved me from being "suspicious" and been a solid move from a townsperson and mafia ...

If you're analyzing how solid your play is, you probably have something to hide. Townies don't. Fairly big tell.

I was tempted because his actions were a bit suspicious, but not enough to warrant a vote

It seems pretty common for scum to cast vague suspicions on fellow scum without actually voting for them. It lets you have the best of both worlds. Small tell.

And because I needed to defend myself simply for not voting

That's awfully defensive. There was no pressure on you at that point. Medium tell.

is it even possible that the mafia could make three kills again this entire game?

Fishing. Small tell.

Sorry for the noob mistake - I was aware of the special roles, but not the two mafia families variation. (I've played about 4 games before)

4 games? You don't get to play the n00b card anymore. Medium tell.

I know you've sort of dealt with the 'no lynch' thing, but I'm not really satisfied. There's only three reasons for a no lynch. One is a complex situation that certainly didn't apply here. The others are both scum tactics, one for new scum, one for experienced scum. I don't know which you are yet.

Anyway, every post you make smells wrong. Taken as a whole, I'm pretty confident that you're scum.

[JSexton]

That would be the obvious one. I've already been open about my reasoning for it, though - I'm more curious about his other reasons for thinking I'm scum.

8 votes on you, and you don't feel the need to defend yourself in the 48 hours since I posted my accusation?

Lurking won't solve this...

[JSexton]

How would you or another townie act any differently in my place?

I'm not going to give you a primer on how to not act like scum.

Happy with my vote.

[JSexton]

Illumina's playing really badly, but the speed that bandwagon's moving looks like it's scum-driven.

Do you have any issue with the post analysis?

[JSexton]

do people simply follow the standardized tell rules around here...

I wouldn't call them rules, as such. I dislike bandwagons based on nothing. If someone swings, I want people posting reasons. I encourage this by posting my reasons, up front, for people to agree with or disagree with.

and then we get this convoluted quoted post from sexton and the run begins on illumina... all for mentioning a no lynch vote...

Convoluted? I don't think so. Readable? Yes.

And it was based on more than a no lynch vote, although I confess that's what caught my attention initially.

interesting... why no follow thru on the other run ups..

Couldn't say. I wasn't involved. And like I said, I dislike bandwagons such as those that don't have anything substantial to them.

[JSexton]

Hmm. Well, I'm not really convinced. We're going to want some verification of your claim at some point later.

Unvote

for now, but I'm keeping an eye on you. You're far from cleared.

[JSexton]

no more cleared than the people who were run up and didn't claim?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't think anyone in this game is cleared. A claim by itself doesn't mean a whole lot. If it get some supporting evidence, then that's something else.

[JSexton]

Nothing, really. This wagon never sat well with me. At first I got what JSexton was saying, but I think Illumina has defended himself well enough.

Vote: JSexton

::waves::

As well as one can at this point in the game, sure. That's why I unvoted a few pages ago.

[JSexton]

I'm up for a Jabroni wagon.

You know what? I am too. At first, I just assumed he voted me just to see how I'd react, which seemed like legit scum probe. Now that he's just left it sitting there, I don't know what he was doing, which makes me wonder.

vote: jabroni2000

[JSexton]

[quote="Yosarian2](shrug) The way he jumped onto a bad bandwagon, (lynching someone who might be a confirmed mason tommorow seems like a pretty bad idea)makes him look suspicious; I tend to be more suspicious of the people who eagerly jump onto bad bandwagons without giving a good reason.[/quote]

Completely forgot about his claim. Grumble.

unvote

.

I would like to say that I gave reasons for every single one of my three (?) votes, though. You're free to dispute my reasoning, but don't misrepresent me as an eager bandwagoner, 'cause it just ain't true.

[JSexton]

(shrug) I understand the reasons for the Fritzler bandwagon, and we could do worse then lynch a claimed townie, but I am going to at least wait until I get an answer from Jsexton to my last post before I move my vote off of him.

What's the question? You restated your reasoning for voting for me, but that's all I see.

[JSexton]

There was no question, specifically. I guess what I really do want is a defense, or a reaction of some sort, to my accusations in that post. After all, half the reason to attack someone on day 1 is to guage their reaction, and the reactions of others.

Specifically, from the post I quoted, it sounded like you jumped onto a quickly growing bandwagon basically as an OMGUS vote, which seemed suspicious, as you didn't OMGUS vote him until there was a bandwagon on him. Was there another reason for your vote? Why, exactally, did you want to get onto that bandwagon at that monent?

I see. I'm not normally a fan of OMGUS votes. This one was a bit different, though. When he threw a vote on me, I assumed he was, like you, gauging my reaction. But he never responded to me after that, instead the vote just sat there. That seemed a bit odd, and other people seemed to see the same scumminess. When the bandwagon grew on him, I didn't mind adding my voice as pressure. I had forgotten about his claim at that point, though.

[JSexton]

I didn't get LyingBrian's hardon for lynching Frtiz yesterday, and I don't get why it continues today, after he was confirmed townie. Sure, there's a chance he's no longer town. It's not critical to deal with that right now, though, is it?

I don't get BabyJesus's hardon for Pooky at all. Is there a running joke I'm missing?

How were we testing Illumina's claim, exactly? We had to hope that someone attempted to vig him, right? So what do we know? Either no one tried to vig him, or he received doc protection, or he is unnightkillable for one reason or another. I guess he's closer to being confirmed, but not ironclad. Tonight he has to investigate someone and prove that ability as well. Should we discuss his target or no?

[JSexton]

I don't get BabyJesus's hardon for Pooky at all. Is there a running joke I'm missing?

Residual bitterness from MTG game...

Oh, ok. So I can safely ignore you then, since you're not actually using logic? Good to know.

[JSexton]

Gonzo, without actually quoting, can you tell us the wording of your PM? Specifically, are there any words to the effect that you can trust your fellow masons absolutely, or is there some wiggle room for traitors/SKs?

[JSexton]

Confirming that Gonzo is a mason as he has claimed.

Kay. Since Gonzo hasn't answered my question, can you? Does the wording of your PM allow for traitors, or is it state that you can trust them 100%?

[JSexton]

That question has already been answered.

Also, in regard to the Mason PM confirming the other masons as pro-town, it doesn't. However, I don't see this as reason to lynch Gonzo, as based on the (minimal) Mason night 1 communication, if there is a traitor in the Mason group, it's more likely to be the remaining member of our group than Gonzo.

Skimmah.

Ah, I did miss that. Thanks.

...so we really don't know anything about our masons? There's three left, and any one could be a traitor, possibly two, even (one mafia, one sk)? Arg. The trend of putting traitors in mason groups is getting irritating.

[JSexton]

Well, yeah, but that's not really a reason to lynch one straight away. I'm just saying as the game goes on, to keep in mind that the mason group isn't 100% confirmed. It's a worse lynch than a random player, though, barring other info, like a watcher seeing them target someone who winds up dead.

[JSexton]

What the hell.

vote: Pooky

. Seems as productive as anything else right now.

[JSexton]

Vesuvan: Are you really trying to say that investigation roles should out themselves day 1 if they find probable scum? Especially when a doc is dead? I mean, he crumbed the hell out of Pooky, and bought himself another night to track without worrying too much about getting nightkilled. And, worst case, if he is? We can see who he pushed for D1 and lynch accordingly.

I really don't see what's so scummy about BJ's actions. Hell, if he'd come out D1 with that accusation, I think I'd more suspicious than I am right now.

[JSexton]

Vesuvan: Are you really trying to say that investigation roles should out themselves day 1 if they find probable scum? Especially when a doc is dead? I mean, he crumbed the hell out of Pooky, and bought himself another night to track without worrying too much about getting nightkilled. And, worst case, if he is? We can see who he pushed for D1 and lynch accordingly.

I really don't see what's so scummy about BJ's actions. Hell, if he'd come out D1 with that accusation, I think I'd more suspicious than I am right now.

JSexton has seen this

exact

strategy work on several games on Misetings. What's more is that he has misrepresented my argument by claiming that I'm suggesting BabyJ claim instead of hold to his target (which would be considered a breadcrumb were he to turn up as a dead investigator), as Fritzler has pointed out.

Having played as scum with JSexton before, I know he is well aware of this strategy. He's also well aware - having seen me do it - that an investigator who jumps around will not be leaving discernable breadcrumbs after his death.

Wait, what? You seem to be implying a couple different (and contradictory) things, neither of which are true or supported. Unless I'm just misreading you completely, which is possible.

All I'm saying is that BJ couldn't get Pooky lynched D1 without claiming his investigation. At that point, leaving his vote on Pooky, while solidfying it as a crumb, also means that he has to waste his vote by not being able to vote for someone else who is both scummy AND lynchable. That seems counterproductive.

While I agree that there other ways to play, I don't see anything inherently scummy in BJ's play.

[JSexton]

Checking in. LyingBrian seems only mildly scummy to me. Lynching him is preferable to a no lynch at deadline, but that's as far as that goes.

Vesuvan's a claimed mason. While I'm always wary of him, I can't for the life of me see the logic behind the wagon on him. He's using his mason status to be aggressive with people and see how they jump. For that we lynch? Don't think so.

Sadly, I don't see any really strong prospects today... This day will not end well, I think.

[JSexton]

everyone keeps talking about a deadline, yet i just reviewed the last few posts from halo freak & Phoebus, & also checked the first post, and have seen absolutely nothing about a deadline... did i miss something?... or is somebody trying to get a quick lynch in?!?...

If you're talking about my last post, I wasn't saying that there is a deadline now. At the rate we're goiong, though, I wouldn't be shocked to see one imposed, and I hate having half-hearted lynches at deadline. They tend to go badly.

[JSexton]

Those who are not contributing toward

any

lynch are NOT HELPFUL. Votes give us information, people. C'mon!

I've said it before: I don't see the case for LB. I think most of the people voting for him are doing so to move the game forward, but not to find scum, really. They just want to see someone, anyone, hang. Show me a decent wagon with some substance, and I'd be happy to vote.

[JSexton]

Vote Count

4 Lying Brian (jajsoccer, Fritzler, inHim, TSAGod)
1 StevieT92 (Vesuvan)
4 Swinkee (Zippy, Zu Faul, Inhim, d8p)
3 Zippy (Stevie T92, Lying Brian, Flying Dutchman)
1 Mikeburnfire (Monty)
1 Flying Dutchman (Baby J)

Vesuvan is no longer in the game, and you have inHim twice.

[JSexton]

Pretty sure Vesuvan said there were three of them way back when. Looks like that's it for masons.

Good god. Looking over the player list, I see that we've only managed to lynch a single person for good. Fortunately, that was the SK.

Anyone have results for us? We've got Illumina and BabyJesus as reporter and tracker, right? Maybe today can last less than a month...

[JSexton]

I'm sure it will GB...

today we are

strenously voting Zu Faul

GB? Was ist?

[JSexton]

Your logic sucks. We know there's two different mafia families. We know there's a dead mafia tracker from the Giulani family. You handed us a SK and Giulani mafioso, but no one from DeBello, who still has a tracker alive, assuming the mafias are symmetrical.

In all likelihood, you're the DeBello tracker, and giving us opposing scum was a great way to 'confirm' yourself. You slipped up with InHim and his lack of targets, though. Oops! We appreciate your help in finding scum, though.

vote: BabyJesus

[JSexton]

Your logic sucks. We know there's two different mafia families. We know there's a dead mafia tracker from the Giulani family. You handed us a SK and Giulani mafioso, but no one from DeBello, who still has a tracker alive, assuming the mafias are symmetrical.

In all likelihood, you're the DeBello tracker, and giving us opposing scum was a great way to 'confirm' yourself. You slipped up with InHim and his lack of targets, though. Oops! We appreciate your help in finding scum, though.

vote: BabyJesus

SKIMMER!! If I "slipped up", then why would I lie about InHim. This was NOT a slipup dumbass. That came straight from the mod.

Well, I don't think you actually tracked him. I think you tracked someone else, but lied to cover your ass, and InHim was more than happy to go along with your lie and look less threatening. Now that we know his role, we know that it's pretty unlikely that he was sitting home that night, barring just colossal laziness on the mafia's part and failing to get the night action in.

:shrug: If that turns out to be the case, you have my apologies, but I'm not going to assume bad play on his part when simple scumminess on yours explains the situation just as well.

[JSexton]

That's an excellent point. BJ, who did you track last night, and what did they do?

[JSexton]

That's an excellent point. BJ, who did you track last night, and what did they do?

fos

If you think I'm scum, and lying, why would you bother asking, You and fellow scum Monty just think I'll make something up....

I'll take that as a confession, then, since you're not being pro-town at all. Die.

[JSexton]

fos zippy

Talk now, about why BJ wasn't scummy yesterday.

And tried to deflect his lynch with a vote on lyingbrian, whom we now know to be town, and who was also the subject of attempted bandwagoning by known mafiosos on several occasions.

It don't look good for you, Zippy.

[JSexton]

and do you really think people earn "BEST MAFIA PERFORMANCE" for blatantly defending a fellow scum...

So is that just going to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for mistakes?

[JSexton]

I wasn't planning on it, but if you're not going to offer any defense...

Looks to me like you don't care and you're just scooping up your cards.

vote: zippy

.

[JSexton]

and yet the guys with no intention of ever posting still have no reason too...

Yeah, well...if we lose, we can blame rampant lurking for it, I think.

[JSexton]

and yet the guys with no intention of ever posting still have no reason too...

Yeah, well...if we lose, we can blame rampant lurking for it, I think.

Your admittance of being anti-town with Zippy is noted.

Durr hurr hurr...No.

I mean how rampant lurking got our forensic detective, vig, superdoc, and a mason modkilled. I mean how there has been 9 replacements for 28 players. One role was manned by four separate people. That's what I'm talking about.

If we, the town, lose, lurking slash ignoring the game will be a major factor. I believe what Zippy was referring to is that there are folks still in the game who haven't posted in weeks, but we aren't applying pressure to do so. I haven't done so either, mostly because I don't think they're actively lurking as a strategy, I think they've stopped caring.