Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[IH]

How about townie?

There it's possible.

End of discussion.

[Erg0]

Technically, the rolename is "villager".

[Xylthixlm]

It's even in the first post. I checked.

[JordanA24]

PBPA of Jordan

0: Wake up vote ABR
1: Joins Peers BW. No explanation or questions given

This is because I agreed with why other players had voted for Peers, any reasoning I'd have given would have just been repeating what others had said. And if I had simply said "For pressure", it'd have probs looked scummier than not saying anything at all

2: FoSes TS for asssuming randomness
3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)

Silkario had just promised to post content soon, so I found it odd that, just 2 posts later, Neo demanded content from Silk. I was wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon on Silk for lurking, conveniently "missing" Silk's post just above, which could grow into a larger, more permanent bandwagon later, especially if Silk's next post is bad, which is more likely if Silk is under pressure from votes for lurking. I called it opportunistic because Silk had said he was going to post, but hadn't yet, which would have been a good time to start a bandwagon on Silk, as he might be pressured by the votes on him when making the post, which might make him make a poor post, resulting in more votes on him.

4: 5 days later, affirms support for Peers vote. Suggests Panzer/Peers link. Thinks MoS is being over-defensive (an accusation I loathe)

Why do you not like over-defensive accusations

5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum

I wasn't suggesting that MOS may be bad scum, I was pointing out to ABR he could be bad scum instead of being a Jester

6: FoSes schism for dodging arguments. Actually, I don't think schism did dodge anything because the debate he had with Yos ended in a theory disagreement. So, it was sensible of schism to do an "agree to disagree". Votes MoS and demands participation.

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

7: Notes that he was the first to raise the bad scum thing
8: Calls out MoS for an OMGUS
9: Thinks Peers is #2 scum to MoS

Just for clarification, I didn't necessarily think that
Peers and MOS were scumbuddies.

10: Rejects Peers' lurker vote for himself because Jordan has now made 10 posts.

Considering that Peers had voted for me on Page 8, and had cited the reason that I had only made 4 posts (2 with no content) at that point for voting me, I think pointing out it was Page 16 and I'd made 10 posts was a fair point to make.

11: MoS accuses Jordan of voting him to latch on to the building anti-MoS sentiment. Jordan demands proof.
12: Quotes his anti-MoS posts. Gives sik a mega-FoS for asking to get the Peers lynch over with
13: Questions for MoS
14: Pushes ABR for defending MoS
15: Wonders why people think MoS is jester
16: Conjecture about what MoS might be
17: Explains his Peers vote was to pressure (worth remembering that Jordan supplied no questions with his vote)

To pressure Peers into providing better content, rather than stuff like "I agree with Yos because I've always wanted to say that". I wanted to see whether under pressure, whether he would pick up his act and defend himself a bit.

18: Asks if Quag is ever going to read his role
19: Doesn't like the Quag lynch, and is keeping his vote on MoS
20: Prefers MoS
21: Tries to persuade Quag to read his PM
22: Cautions that Quag is at L-1
23: "Not convinced Quag is scum. "
24: Queries MoS for saying he isn't policy lynching anyone
25: Asks if ABR just confessed
26: Doesn't like zu dodging questions ( I agree). FoSes hasd for declaring to go along with consensus (I agree). Votes hasd.
27: QFTs BM calling Quag a fucktard who should be the one to leave the site, after Quag was awful to TS. (Hehe, this is even made more amusing given what's Quagmire's temp-ban)

Has Quag been tempbanned? That's news to me *Breaks open a bottle of Champagne*

28: Votes Quag for being a distraction and not helping. I really don't like the fact that jordan now moves to a Quag wagon when he had good arguments against hasdf - particularly given his previous criticism of the Quag wagon.

I felt Quag was deliberatly messing with the town, to keep the town talking about him. My theory was that he had had enough of Mafia for the time being (He had said so himslef), so he thought he would be at least halfway useful to his scumteam by messing with the town for his own amusement and to distract the town from his scumbuddies, this is kinda why I voted him.

29: Keeps pushing against Quag. Agrees with Book about MOS spinning Quag.
30: Questions Quag. Says he had hoped that Quag would not distract the entire game.
31: Sets about explaining the weird shift in his behaviour to Quag. He suggests Quag is scum with MOS. He questions Quag for saying that the discussion about his role is pointless, wondering whether he would be saying that about someone else. This is dodgy, since the reason Quag did not want questions on the subject was, obviously, that it was purely a playstyle point - so this questioning from Jordan just seems futile to me. Says Quag is showing desperation because he called the wagon on him stupid and said TS is scum. It looks like frustration, but that isn't of itself a scumtell. Also rejects Quag saying that his actions weren't scummy because scum don't want attention on the bases that 1) Town don't like attention either (good, so it's a nulltell at most) and 2) That Quag didn't know his role (in which case, it can't be scummy). Rightly swipes at Quag for his refusal to answer things.

But Quag said that scum don't like attention being brought onto themselves, but he hadn't read his role PM yet, so he didn't know if he was scum or town, so, IMO, he was making stuff up to cover up for himself, which is

extrememly

scummy.

I don't see how my questioning was futile, it was stopping Quag from screwing with the town and forcing him to defend himself.

32: IGMEOYs ABR for what looks like an opportunistic vote on Peers (I agree). Questions MoS about policy lynches. Upgrades ABR to FOS for voting Kscope without explanation despite going on LA. Calls for Quag's lynch
33: D2 - HUGE-FOSes Quagmire, and FoSes hasd and panzer for their dodgy votes. Votes ST for having cast the 7th Scope vote in only his second in-game post.
34: Explains acronym
35: "That makes sense"
36: Wants Quag to be helpful (Ha! Now that's wishful thinking). Votes Panzer for his replacement request looking like scum giving up and running from votes. Thinks TS is obvtown since she is logical and going after scummy players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about

60%

.

What is your position on Quag? You seem to beat around the bush a bit regarding Quag. You call his play "indefensable", but not unhelpful to the town, which doesn't seem right to me, so can you please post your actual position on Quag, preferably with a rating (like my 60%) for him please.

[zu_Faul]

5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum

I wasn't suggesting that MOS may be bad scum, I was pointing out to ABR he could be bad scum instead of being a Jester

How is this not suggesting that he may be bad scum??

6: FoSes schism for dodging arguments. Actually, I don't think schism did dodge anything because the debate he had with Yos ended in a theory disagreement. So, it was sensible of schism to do an "agree to disagree". Votes MoS and demands participation.

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

Seems to me that shis just wanted to end the discussion, though I don't think it is a scum tell - it was a matter of opinion after all. May still be worth remembering to see if he does something like that again.

I think Jordan rather is protown, vollkan as well.

[Shanba]

spambot replaces Sir Tornado

[Battle Mage]

long time no see Spambot.

[schismatized]

oh no all we need is more spam..

[Xylthixlm]

schizmatized, why aren't you contributing?

[vollkan]

This is because I agreed with why other players had voted for Peers, any reasoning I'd have given would have just been repeating what others had said. And if I had simply said "For pressure", it'd have probs looked scummier than not saying anything at all

Okay. This is one reason I don't like unexplained votes, because it means that rather than taking a transparent position at the time, you can justify it later. I'm not saying I think your vote was scummy, because I know such votes are common, they just irk me a little.

3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)

Silkario had just promised to post content soon, so I found it odd that, just 2 posts later, Neo demanded content from Silk. I was wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon on Silk for lurking, conveniently "missing" Silk's post just above, which could grow into a larger, more permanent bandwagon later, especially if Silk's next post is bad, which is more likely if Silk is under pressure from votes for lurking. I called it opportunistic because Silk had said he was going to post, but hadn't yet, which would have been a good time to start a bandwagon on Silk, as he might be pressured by the votes on him when making the post, which might make him make a poor post, resulting in more votes on him.

That seems rather conspiratorial of you. You were "wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon" and yet you voted. That suggests that you just assumed he was trying to push the opportunity. Sure, it wasn't a fantastic vote - but there was nothing to suggest that he had any intention of building the wagon up to a stage of being permanent.

Also, could you please address why you didn't attack any of the other's wagoning on Sik and explain the accusation that Peers was back-tracking?

Why do you not like over-defensive accusations

Because it's player-dependent.

I see it as analogous to when I get attacked for being "over-aggressive". If people bothered to meta me for three minutes, they would realise that I am always inquisitorial about things. Similarly, if you meta individuals who are called "over-defensive", more often than not I think they will be that way consistently.

The only valid form of the over-defensive accusation is something like: "Having reviewed all of X's games, it seems X is only very defensive when he is scum. Thus, I shall vote X for his defensiveness here."

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

Indeed, but that wasn't what happened here.

Yos and schism's argument ended up coming down to a theory-point. Whilst they could have continued arguing, it would not have been directly relevant.

To pressure Peers into providing better content, rather than stuff like "I agree with Yos because I've always wanted to say that". I wanted to see whether under pressure, whether he would pick up his act and defend himself a bit.

Yes, but "Vote: X" doesn't provide pressure unless it is coupled with an attack. Otherwise, all the votee can do is ask for some explanation. The real "pressure" comes from the arguments.

Has Quag been tempbanned? That's news to me *Breaks open a bottle of Champagne*

Yeah, for spamming in GD.

*cheers*

I felt Quag was deliberatly messing with the town, to keep the town talking about him. My theory was that he had had enough of Mafia for the time being (He had said so himslef), so he thought he would be at least halfway useful to his scumteam by messing with the town for his own amusement and to distract the town from his scumbuddies, this is kinda why I voted him.

What made you think Quag was scum, versus Quag just being a useless townie?

But Quag said that scum don't like attention being brought onto themselves, but he hadn't read his role PM yet, so he didn't know if he was scum or town, so, IMO, he was making stuff up to cover up for himself, which is extrememly scummy.

I reasoned that what he was saying was that his behaviour was not scummy because scum wouldn't do it. It didn't require him to actually know his own alignment to say that.

What is your position on Quag? You seem to beat around the bush a bit regarding Quag. You call his play "indefensable", but not unhelpful to the town, which doesn't seem right to me, so can you please post your actual position on Quag, preferably with a rating (like my 60%) for him please.

I call it "indefensible" because it breaks the spirit of the game. It doesn't "hurt" the town if he actually engages in scumhunting - which he didn't. That said, it can be argued that by virtue of him not knowing his alignment, he deprives the town of information because there is the potential for Quag, not knowing his alignment, to play in a half-hearted fashion.

I would put his play at 55%. From memory, he didn't do anything particularly "scummy", but his refusal to help or post anything meaningful merited suspicion.

[Spambot]

Hello guys. I didn't realize day two would be 68 pages to read, but I'm going to catch up as quickly as possible. Are we under a deadline currently?

[Xylthixlm]

The sad part is that as far as I can tell, nothing important

happened

day 1.

[schismatized]

I cant remember anything happening this game period.

[PJ.]

Alright, I'm totally lost and I think just about everyplayer in this game has been replaced from what I remember. So I'm gonna go re-read that 46 page Day 1 and try to see if I can retain this game.

[Toaster Strudel]

I cant remember anything happening this game period.

Even worse, nothing is happening RIGHT NOW.

[Toaster Strudel]

Hey. If you guys are bored. I have an idea to make something happen.

[PJ.]

what is it?

[Toaster Strudel]

Ooooh, a bite!

I even have TWO ideas.

The first one is to get 4 people to vote for me. When that happens, I'll be lynched! So, that's one thing that will happen. Then, we got to night, and the scum can pick one of us to kill. And then... yes there is more... we can waste another 50 pages doing nothing, but at least I won't be there.

My second idea, and that one takes a bit more work, is to get 5 people to vote for hasdagas. The disadvantage of this option, in addition to requiring one more vote, is that I will be irritating you during all of Day 3's 50 pages. The advantage is that the scum will have one less buddy to consult, so that they might send in their choice faster, resulting in a shorter night.

[hasdgfas]

Or, possibly, we could look for something besides your false dilemma and lynch someone like zu_faul or jordan, both of which have also been scummy. This isn't a one or the other situation, TS, no matter whether you want it to be or not. There are lots of people still alive, and, even if I were scum, you still would want to look for the others.

[Shanba]

Vote Count:

4: TS

(Panzerjager, Zu_Faul, IH, BM)

3: hasdgfas

(Bookitty, TS, schismatized)

1: Sir Tornado

(JordanA24)

1: Bookitty

(Quagmire)

1: Battle Mage

(Erg0)

1: JordanA24

(Setael)

1: Erg0

(Xylthixlm)

Not Voting:

Sir Tornado, hasdgfas, YagamiLight

[Toaster Strudel]

Or, possibly, we could look for something besides your false dilemma and lynch someone like zu_faul or jordan, both of which have also been scummy. This isn't a one or the other situation, TS, no matter whether you want it to be or not. There are lots of people still alive, and, even if I were scum, you still would want to look for the others.

Despite vollkan's recent analysis I'm not warming to Jordan as scum. Zu_Faul, maybe. Panzer... Sir Tornado... Setael is on my to-lynch list but I forgot why...

Hasdagas, on the other hand... there are plenty of good reasons to lynch Hasdagas. Defending Quagmire and deadline lynching a power role come to mind.

[vollkan]

Despite vollkan's recent analysis I'm not warming to Jordan as scum.

Jordan only got a 60% from me. My voting threshold in extreme cases is 65% (usu. 70%).

I'll do up another analysis shortly. Zu_faul seems like a good starting point.

[Toaster Strudel]

I'll do up another analysis shortly. Zu_faul seems like a good starting point.

Quick one, too. Do Sir Tornado for hors d'oeuvres.

Oh please do hasdagas. Please please please pretty please.

[Setael]

Or, possibly, we could look for something besides your false dilemma and lynch someone like zu_faul or jordan, both of which have also been scummy.

Hey hasdfgas - what do you think is scummy about jordan? And if there are people you find scummy, why aren't you voting anyone?

[Toaster Strudel]

[...] even if I were scum, you still would want to look for

the others

.

Hey anyone caught that?

We should still want to look for the OTHER scum.

Not just hasdagasscum. You know. He's not the only scum. There are other scum, and we should look for these others, too.