Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[Edgerobin]

Vote: ConSpiracy

, Name alone makes him obvscum.

[Edgerobin]

Vote:Edgerobin

for making me want to drink wine.

There's a WIFOM joke in this somewhere...

1) What is everybody's timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're expecting a post from you, and it wont come until the wee hours of the morning.

GMT+10

2) What is your mafia experience here and elsewhere? It helps my reads to know who are the pros and who are still learning.

I'm an alt - I've been onsite for over a year. And I won't be telling you who I am, so don't bother asking.

3) About how often can we expect you to post?

I should average about 1 post a day.

Mute, why do you feel the need to make two random votes that don't actually advance the game?

ICEninja, why do you feel that making two random votes should be questioned?

With that in mind, I do not think we should take kindly to lurking. We cannot afford to dawdle.

If people lurk, we should ask them why they are lurking. If they are bored or something, then they should leave. We shouldn't waste our precious time chasing lurkers. Question and probe them by all means, but don't get into the "lurking is scummy" spiral.

@Edgerobin: Have you played forum mafia before? Here? Elsewhere? Are you familiar with MS's ways?

See above - I'm an alt.

On the Javert issue - I guessed before reading Javert's post #39 that he was faking a serious vote to get reactions. I'll say explicitly that this is good play; obviously, it only works because most people will random vote giving it an element of surprise.

Now, to look at reactions to Javert:

I don't like ICEninja's vote so I am going to

Unvote, Vote: ICEninja

. This is because in his #22 ICEninja says:

You voted people based on their name. That doesn't do anything to get discussion going. There are some things people do to get discussion going, such as bandwagoning, voting people supporting bandwagons, asking questions,

reaction hunting,

etc. However, simply making random votes for random reasons do nothing of what you said.

and yet, despite this, he makes inflamattory descriptions of what Javert did, saying:

Also,

the only way

Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy. I too, as indicated by a comment made earlier in this post (that is now obsolete but I don't feel like deleting for transparency reasons), believed he voted a player for reasons of not posting yet. Simply declaring a player scum without "if" is

one of the most solid scum tells in the game, I'd say. I don't usually make serious votes like this so early, but...

Vote Javert.

I've bolded the hyperbole.

For a player who knows that reaction-hunting is a good way to start, it's odd that he not only wouldn't even appear to contemplate that Javert might have been reaction-hunting - and even odder that he'd use excessive language.

Contrast that with Poirot:

Time to end RVS for you, buddy. If you are joking about magnus_orion, then state so clearly. If you really think magnus_orion is scum, then state why, if it doesn't relate to your "lurker awareness policy", to give it a name.

Who shows he was actually thinking about possible motivations, rather than going for an easy target on weak logic and strong rhetoric.

Oso and Mute also are suspicious to me for their votes for the similar reason that they joined a growing wagon without showing any pause and reflection on Javert's possible motivations.

Playing the I'm scummy-on-purpose-to-catch-scum doesn't work. It's not a smart way to act. By refusing to answer questions and being smug about it you're allegedly justifying any votes on you.

I disagree.

It has to be done carefully. It has to be so scummy that scum will attack it, but not so scummy that somebody who is genuinely trying to analyse people might mistake it. That said, it is probably has a risk of getting false positives on newbies - but so does basically everything.

I hate to start this way. Focusing on trivial matters like they're important so someone will say something stupid.

On that subject, it's easier forme to answer broad q's than to answer a list of questions asking the same thing.

There had been many serious posts by the time you said this. Why do you not want to share your opinion on them?


I think Mute's 33 is also bad. He still hasn't explained why Javert's play is scummy (he really now just seems to be saying that it's scummy because he thinks it is antitown - hence him pushing a policy lynch). I'd basically echo what DavidParker has just posted.

I'd happily vote either Mute or ICE right now, and Oso gets a

FoS

[Edgerobin]

Who doesn't get lynched Day 1?

How many times does someone who comes under scrutiny early Day 1 ever get looked at seriously again until the endgame (without some sort of PR tagging them)?

Given that people tend to get Town Points for ending the RVS, who actually has the greater motivation to deliberately end the RVS instead of letting it end organically: Town or Scum?

I don't follow this. For starters, I don't think it's true that people get town points for ending RVS. And second, I don't see why, even if they did, that would make it scummy (the fact scum has an incentive to do something doesn't make it scummy - especially given that town also has a lot of really good reasons for wanting to end RVS)

Are you unwilling to even consider that Javert did what he did as a way to get cover for a couple of game days as scum rather than as a townie fishing for reactions?

I klnow this wasn't addressed to me, but I want to say that it's a pretty useless question. The issue isn't whether there is a possibility that Javert was doing what he did for scummy reasons - it's whether there is any good reason for thinking it makes Javert probable scum.

Actually, it sounds like I did something very similar to what you did. You stated that "magnus is scum", and voted for him. I stated that "Javert is scum and this is why", and voted for you. You unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of your vote was served, and I unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of my vote was served. You are somewhat hypocritical to be calling me scummy for this.

This is extremely weak.

There's a clear difference between somebody taking a (what should have been) clearly baiting action early at the very start of the game and somebody (ie you) being an ostensibly serious wagon for the same silly reason that many people were joining the wagon and then saying "Teehee I was faking it"

(post 43) - Edge I disagree with your point about lurkers, lurkers are scummy so we can very easily get into that spiral because my experience has shown this to be true in almost every game I have played. Scum lurk because it takes attention off of them, and it is quite easy to tell which lurkers are truly disinterested and which ones are lurking scum, I will keep an eye on them and point them out as I notice them, but right now the game is still early so nobody is really a lurker yet.

That's the reason scum lurk - but town also lurk out of being bored and lazy and so on. Anyway, this is really a theory debate at this stage; suffice to say that I will oppose any lurker lynch.

-In ISOs 0 and 2, he places votes based on player's names. In ISO 3, he makes a statement suggesting his random votes accomplish a lot for town. Perhaps this is theory disagreement, but to me it looks like he's trying to make himself look more productive and pro-town than he is.

This just isn't true. You completely misrepresent Mute as saying that his random votes "accomplish a lot". what he actually said was much more understated:

How don't they? Voting to get people involved, get discussions going, acquire info, find people whom are felt to be scum, etc etc etc. I prefer to vote for random reasons until a point where serious discussion is reached, and the RVS ends and the game proper begins. Then my votes get based on solid reasoning.

[Edgerobin]

@ edge - lurking is anti-town plain and simple so to be against a lurker lynch is sketchy at best. I am not saying that we drop a bandwagon and go after them but if we hit a point in the game early on a lurker lynch should definitely not be something to be against. Lurking is anti-town because it deprives town of content and lurkers aren't likely to scum hunt very well, if at all.

secondly I would like to add that i don't really care for the reason that Ice gave for his mute vote and I don't like the strong reaction he had to the policy lynching suggestion. I will be honest I am not 100% against a policy lynch if I know the player's habits and he is going to screw town over (furclow for example) and I don't think anyone in here has shown traits of being bad enough to deserve a PL. I do think if a few more days go by and we have some genuine lurkers, I will definitely be up for a lurker policy lynch, but it's too early in the game for that.

I really don't see where this is coming from. You're spending an inordinate amount of time telling us what you will do in the event that people are lurking. Aside from the fact that I think your approach to lurking is completely wrongheaded, I can't see any reason for this - other than, of course, making yourself "consistent" so as to justify those policy lynching in advance.

Well as I stated in my last post, I've never seen that "clearly baiting action" before. I figured it was just RVS play that could have been fueled with scum knowledge. As I've said countless times before, it was the strongest case I could make with what I had. I never said "teehee I was faking it". I never faked anything. Why do people keep making up things about what I did? I simply stated that I over-pushed the wagon based on the strength of the case.

It just doesn't make sense to me that you'd think it more likely that scum-Javert would be outing a scummbuddy than baiting. You're basically saying that you thought it more likely he'd outright break the rules than bait.

Secondly, you're understating your backtrack significantly. If you genuinely thought his action was only possibly scummy, then describing it in the way that you did was lying. The line between rhetorical hyperbole that everybody uses to persuade people and outright lying is often not that clear, but here I don't think it can seriously be argued that you weren't lying about your opinion on Javert at some point.

This just isn't true. You completely misrepresent Mute as saying that his random votes "accomplish a lot". what he actually said was much more understated:

Not at all. I asked him "how do your votes help the game" and he responds "how don't they?" and lists a bunch of things votes (and he's implying HIS votes) do to advance the game. It isn't a strong tell, but it's what I got out of it.

Ah..."It isn't a strong tell" - code for "I'm wrong but I am not going to admit it".

Quoting Mute's post:

How don't they? Voting to get people involved, get discussions going, acquire info, find people whom are felt to be scum, etc etc etc. I prefer to vote for random reasons until a point where serious discussion is reached, and the RVS ends and the game proper begins. Then my votes get based on solid reasoning.
I do not feel it has yet but we are close with your current post.

You described him as saying his votes "accomplish a lot" and that he is listing a bunch of things. Read the damn list. He is basically just claiming the conventional justification for RVS - namely, to get things moving. His list is entirely accurate as a statement of the purpose of RVS and, to that end, two votes (or three, or four) is just as valid as one.

I'd just like to post my agreement with Rob that 3-4 days before deadline if the activity and content of some of the players in this game doesn't pick up I will fully support a lynch of one of these players. It makes the game more enjoyable and.. is just more helpful if everyone is actively posting their opinions (as wrong as some people mind find those opinions to be).

Yes, I know I don't support policy lynches, but 3-4 days before deadline, lynching someone for not posting any content is not what I consider a policy lynch, but a player being anti-town and lurking, which is definitely a scum tell in current meta.

Again - what is the point of this?

If you think lurkers are scummy, you are just warning them not to lurk?

If you don't think lurkers are scummy, why the hell are you even contemplating lynching them?

@edge: commentary on ICE's more recent play. Your accusation involving hyperbole keeps getting referred to... the original accusation is interesting because you seem to claim ICE should've known what Javert was doing. Why do you believe this to be the case?

Sorry, I thought I'd been clear on this.

Town should be analysing people's posts. They don't always, but we have to assume that they will. Now, on reading Javert's post there are only, in my view, four possible interpretations:
1) Javert is insane
2) Javert is scum outing a scumbuddy
3) Javert is scum pretending to out his partner
4) Javert is null trying to bait (I say null because obviously scum can try baiting as well)

1) isn't worth taking seriously. 2) would be against the rules. 3) would have no point (it doesn't clearly say "this guy is my partner", nor is it in any way going to get the target lynched, since it premises the target's scummines on Javert's own). 4), of course, is the most likely - no matter what Jav's alignment.

So, if he was thinking at all about Jav's alignment, he should have concluded that the best thing to do would be to hold off and see what happens. The fact that he didn't can only suggest that he wasn't interested in Jav's alignment.

[Edgerobin]

Edger, two things. One, I never once thought that Javert was going to push a lynch on a scum buddy at the beginning of day 1.

You said:

I figured it was just RVS play that could have been fueled with scum knowledge

What "scum knowledge" would indicate to scum that a person was scum - other than them being scumbuddies?

Outing him now would potentially give Javert some town cred later if magnus gets lynched. Javert could come back and say "I knew it all along", etc. Two, scum throwing a partner under the bus for town cred is by no means against the rules. Mod has blatantly stated this in game. Several of your statements against me are incorrect because of these facts.

Bussing is completely different from outing. It should be pretty damn obvious that Javert-scum would get absolutely no town credit for outing a scum in his very first post - it would clearly finger him as a scumbuddy.


Which is why this:

Again, you're stating that exaggerating and lying are one and the same. I wasn't lying in believing that having scum knowledge of who scum is and who scum isn't is a scum tell. Is it not? The question of the matter is, how much did what Javert say indicate that he has scum knowledge? Given how he said he was reaction testing, that is a perfectly reasonable motive for his statement that magnus is scum, and means he probably wasn't saying anything out of having scum knowledge. Had Javert not been reaction testing, then that would have helped my read on him. If, down the road, one of Javert and magnus flipped scum, I would have suspected the other based on the RVS events.

I admit the wording of my original vote could have been better. I believe that someone knowing who is scum is a very solid scum tell. Stating that someone is scum without a qualifier is usually the slip that scum makes to indicate that they have inside knowledge of who is scum and who is not. My exaggeration was that what Javert did was blatantly stating that he knew who scum was. He was, but he probably didn't have information that actually indicated if magnus is or is not scum.

Just doesn't make sense.

Maybe I am just understanding you, so answer me this:

Assume Javert is scum. Assume Javert knows that Magnus is also scum. Why would Javert out Magnus in his first post?

[Edgerobin]

@ ice

Rob, you seem to have a lot of material to indicate you are at odds with David. You seem to disagree with him a lot, but you make good points. I am concerned, however, that a lot of your post was dedicated to disagreeing with him and not a lot of it was dedicated to analyzing his alignment. Do you feel that his actions were scummy? Do you feel like David is more likely to flip scum than other players right now?

I actually have a feeling that he could be scum and here is why.

I don't like the fact that he has defended Javert for his attempt at reaction fishing while completely negating the whole exercise. While I feel that yes Javert put the attention on himself, how can ANYONE think he was pro-town enough to be defended like DP was doing. The fact that he completely ruined the gambit to me means that he was doing 2 things.

1. defending Javert because DP thinks (or maybe knows) he is town
2. taking the attention off magnus

Which of DP's posts is this in reference to?

I don't want to rebut your DP case in advance of DP doing so - but I'll say now that I think points 1-2 of yours aren't scummy (from DP), point 3 is kind of "so what?" (a single non-adding post is hardly uncommon), 4 is just wrong (I see that DP has already answered this point - so I will say I agree with him. He (wrongly imo) advoctates lurker lynching on the basis that lurking is scummy. He's wrong on that point, but if he thinks lurking is scummy, which a lot of people seem to, then it isn't a policy lynch)

And no, it is absolutely not time for claim. My case against Mute is very sound, and hardly anyone has touched on it. A sizable case was just thrown down against DP, and while I may not fully agree with it, it carries some merit. A claim right now would help scum significantly, and town not at all.

If I was still deciding among my top suspects, this would have changed my mind in and of itself. This is just the mafia equivalent of "hey, look over there".

I would not be adverse to a hammer without even letting ICEninja claim if he is going to try and be squirrelly about it. If I had another vote, I would vote him again right now.

I agree. A lynch without a claim is bad - but not lynching somebody because they don't claim is infinitely worse.

I think lurking is scummy. However town also lurk, there is explanation for townies lurking, either disinterest or real life keeping them busy.

Yes it is warning players not to lurk, if they can't handle the game they should not have signed or should replace out and send flowers to the mod as an apology for signing and then flaking. Assuming players signed to play the game and be involved in finding scum, lurking then becomes a scum tell.

I see no point wagoning lurkers during the early stages of a day, it's much more beneficial to go after the information/reaction wagons such as Javerts/Ice's/Mute's/Mine where you will get accusation/defense/etc and just get more information on the table. Voting someone for not being caught up with the game isn't valuable until it actually gets to the point where we are about to lynch someone to end the day.

Scratch what I said above - you're pushing a policy lynch (though, not in the simplistic way ICE initially claimed).

The bolded part in particular sent the "policy lynch alarm bells" ringing for me. See, you aren't asking "Is this player more likely to be scum than town?" What you are saying is "To discourage people from lurking, I am going to assume that lurking is motivated by scummy reasons". Thus, you're basically pushing a policy lynch but disguising it as a proper lynch.

1. The vote may be dropped, the case certainly isn't. You voted for him for changing reasons. The vote was a bandwagon-vote, with no clear reason. No good.
2. Well, you were. That is even worse than still are. You changed your mind about it as soon as you are called scummy for mentioning a policy lynch. That seems to me you want to lose the attention.
3. Well, no need to quote ICE, since you can find yourself what is bad about this.

The interesting thing about this is that, as you point out, on each one Mute's response is basically to say that something WAS his position, but he's now changed. See:

1. You call me out for my vote on Javert, which I should remind you has been dropped by now.
2. You say that I am "subtly trying to get someone lynched" by bringing up policy lynching inappropriately, which is not the case anymore.
3. I voted for him because I felt he was scummy in his posting in the beginning of the game.

He's not admitting he was wrong; nor is he actually defending himself in any real way.

[Edgerobin]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1#p2743521

all this is still very valid points and because you refused to make a single case on anyone yesterday and just hopped on at the last minute (probably to hammer your partner) I feel good about this vote

Vote David Parker

And your case just gets worse.

RobCapone+7

. DP's made some efforts at defending himself, so there is more I want to say. Let me go through this:

To begin with, I asked you to explain this:

I don't like the fact that he has defended Javert for his attempt at reaction fishing while completely negating the whole exercise. While I feel that yes Javert put the attention on himself, how can ANYONE think he was pro-town enough to be defended like DP was doing. The fact that he completely ruined the gambit to me means that he was doing 2 things.
1. defending Javert because DP thinks (or maybe knows) he is town
2. taking the attention off magnus

I thought maybe I was missing something, but I'm not. Quoting from your ISO 21:

this is where he is defending (protecting, or whatever else you want to call it) Javert because people are voting him

I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

He is moving us out of RVS even if it's by drawing negative attention to himself. Now get your votes off him.

I'll be looking at the various reactions to Javert to see which is most scummy.

this is where he admits he has ruined javert's attempt at reaction fishing

Sorry for ruining your little "ploy" but frankly I wasn't that interested in magnus's reaction and don't think it would have been as revealing as you are making it to be. It may have been interesting to see whether he bandwagoned you or not, but I could see him doing that as town or scum. As it stands, it was more important to diffuse the situation and get people off your back.

So yes, Javert's play while not being a town tell in my eyes, was definitely a move that benefited town (YEAH I KNOW CONTRADICTION)

From the very first of those quotes you post, and it's even clearer in the second, DP clearly doesn't think Jav's "antics" are going to achieve anything. So he isnt "undermining" Javert - because he doesn't think there is anything to be undermined.

and once that happened nobody paid any attention to magnus and what does DP get for taking the attention off magnus and defending Javert for his attempt to end RVS and reaction fish (which DP ruins) he gets this post from magnus

Which just doesn't make sense. Plenty of people don't like gambits, and DP thought it was useless. It may have pulled attention off magnus, but you haven't proven at all that that is what DP was trying to do, let alone that he was trying to do it for scummy reasons as opposed to genuinely thinking the gambit was unreliable.

it is just pinging on my scumdar, in the end it could be nothing but in my head I am skeptical about the whole thing and David is right in the middle of it all

You aren't being skeptical, you're being paranoid/conspiratorial. David makes a post attacking what he thinks is bad. In doing so, David defends Magnus. Big deal.

And...coming right back to the very first quote I quoted from you, DP had been suspicious of ICE for some time. Painting it as a sudden turnabout is just rubbish.

I will go ahead and point out the obvious:

Just because ICEninja claims to only have one partner, it does not make it true. Scum who seem to "give up" often leave Towns with at least one final poison pill as an attempt at sowing confusion. I will believe it when I see it.

ConSpiracy, I am going to kindly ignore your commentary on how you think I should play.

^ This. Especially given that his 194 shows he was clearly still thinking about the game, including its saccharine ending of "I'm helping town as much as I can at this point because in serious honestly, I would prefer town to win than the other scum team. I want them caught." It reads more like mafia trying to appear to be town's best friend (a really weird thing in and of itself) than mafia actually wanting to help the town. Basically, I'm treating everything he said as likely BS.

[Edgerobin]

@DP: it was not a vote. It was a way to say that Rob was getting scumpoints because of that post... I guess I am not doing a great job at keeping my alt hidden...

Javert's gambit could have worked or not - we won't know because of you
Magnus's reaction could have helped figure things out - we won't know cause of you

So you basically believe that the test by Javert was a genuine reaction-test. If so, wouldn't the implication be that a hypothetical scum-DP, who ruined the gambit, was protecting the target of the test.
Instead, you seem to be concentrated on a connection between Javert and DP.
Could you please comment on this?

[Edgerobin]

Since Oso made a full claim, I don't see why he would be reluctant to answer the questions that followed. Here are a couple of considerations:

1) Clarifying the extension of your power on town does not mean quoting the mod. So I fail to understand your problem with it.
2) Clarifying the extension of your power on town is of the utmost importance. By all means do ask the mod. It is a legitimate question. And if you have issues with posting the answer in thread due to the ruleset, just ask the mod if you can.
3) By claiming now you are basically betting that there is only one mafia. We are unable to categorically exclude that there are two, in which case you would be unable to block both and you would probably be dead tomorrow. Did you consider this? I find it a little risky.
4) Considering point 3, if you think that your information can help town building a case or understanding the mechanics, why are you not revealing it right away? Anyway, before doing it, you should be sure about the effects your power has on town.

[Edgerobin]

@Edger, I blocked you. You made the short list of people, in my mind, who I wouldn't mind being in the endgame with if I went all the way that far in the game. I'll get more into that reasoning behind choosing you (and why I think ICE was telling the truth about 2 scum teams. Or at least why I think he truly believed there was 2 teams).

It's all good. I know better than doing a claim at this point, but I will say that you blocking me last night had no influence whatsoever on the mechanics.

However, I wish to add something about the number of scumteams in this game. I am not at all convinced that ICE was lying: he may have had good reasons to feel like there are two. On the other hand, there is no further proof indicating so. If there are two mafias, I can imagine 3 possible scenarios:
1) both mafias attacked the same player: Poirot was a very strong and clever towntell of mine, I guess he may have been a strategic target.
2) one NK was prevented by a mechanic different than your power (UNLIKELY: we are in a mini, but possible: perhaps a hider, or smth. milar).
3) one team - aiming to disprove what ICE said - decided to no-kill.

This post is very interesting. This post (after reading Oso blocked him) screamed to discredit the roleblocker-guy. Especially since his "second mafia" kill didn't go through.

There are some serious logic flaws in the post I am quoting from.
In my post, I was asking the RB to reveal his target right away.

If there are actually two mafias, and I was a member of one mafia that was blocked, I would have known it seeing that "our" target did not die. Why would I ask the RB to reveal someone who would be "my" scumbuddy?

(not that if Oso's claim is genuine, I can by no means be member of the mafia that was not blocked: sorry for stating the obvious, it sometimes helps)

If he revealed it at deadline, like he was planning to do, "my" scumpartner would have likely gained 1 extra-day alive.

Tbh, Conspiracy, I find it hard to think that you missed this flaw. And this makes me think that your post was opportunistic.

Point being, this I believe is a fairly extraordinary for your scum team. About to lose half the team on Day-1, so a change up in the way you play would be appropriate for this game. Especially since ICE implied that you guys also have Day talk here:

I had missed this. It is a precious information. If scum can talk during day, I guess that bussing, alliances and distancings would be hard to detect. This makes me wonder if the alleged alliance between ICE and DP makes any sense.

And of course:

I'll add that if there is a 2 scum team of DP and Ice, there is no chance DP would bus ice especially because they would have talked about the 2 mafia group possibility.

This is correct, ICE said "partner"

All in all, we were given a lot of information by ICE. If ICE had only one partner, it is very much likely that there is more than one mafia. All depends on whether he was lying or telling the truth.

I will write something about Mute later, now I better go back to sleep.

[Edgerobin]

@edgerobin: I believe it's already been pointed out, but asking for the RB to claim his target proves nothing at all. If anything you'd rather the information be presented earlier, regardless of faction, in order to account for it in future decisions and actions.

correct.

Right now, assuming two scum groups of two, I would suggest that today we try and lynch whoever we think is partnered with ICEninja. If ICEninja indeed only has one partner, lynching that partner will take the number of anti-town nightkills we have to deal with from two to one. Once we have reached that point, if Oso is Town and manages to block one member of the other team (i.e. Mute, since he cannot roleblock Edgerobin two nights in a row), then we could get through the tonight without a single kill. On the other hand, if Mute is role-blocked but there is a "shooting" kill, that would be a strong indicator that Mute is actually Town.

"defending" would be stupid . As I said, me being blocked N1 had no relevance for the mechanics. I have posted the possible explanations that exist for the single kill since I am not scum, you can go back and comment on them whenevr you like (try to read them better than Jerbs, who apparently reads only some parts of people's posts).

However, something bothers me in your post. Oso's power is - apparently - very strong. Why are you trying to control it?

I am more and ore convinced that - if there are two scum parties - one decided to No Kill to discredit ICE's post. After which, seeing that there was a super-RB claim, they realised they could easily build a case on the blocked player.

And this is apparently what you are trying to do. You don't suggest to lynch me today, so I could procrastinate any defense. But why are you not suggesting to lynch me today? In your reconstruction, you could very well prevent a night kill, right? I am scum, mute is scum with me: lynch me and block him! Or don't you want your theory to be proved wrong right away?

But more than everything I am extremely bothered by your attempt at deciding Oso's target. It is very anti-town.

[Edgerobin]

Quick post:

To whoever was asking where "shooting" Mafia came from, and apparently missed my reference to the opening post of the game, I will just quote it with emphasis:

Screams pierced the sky just as the sun rose. All of the villagers rushed out, wanting to see what the noise was. The mayor, Jake Jones, was dead, a

knife sticking from his back!

Laying next to him, his two bodyguards’ bodies lay on the ground, all life gone in a single

bullet through the forehead.

This is definitely the n^th element pointing to a 2-scumteams theory. Since it represents the worst-possible-scenario, it is definitely safe to assume it. I can only say that, since I am not scum, there is a high chance that one of the mafias no-killed to disprove ICE's dying posts, and now, seeing there is a RB, they are trying to frame the target of the RB. Honestly, it is a win-win situation for scum. If they succeed in having me lynched, they will always be able to defend their attack as being very reasonable at this point.

@Rob: I don't understand your observation about Oso not pushing my lynch. Are you disbelieving his claim? As I said, I have no way to confirm or deny that I was blocked, and I trust his claim is true. A mafia faking such a claim (RB with power extended to team-actions) on day2 would be a suicidal move.

On the other hand, the fact that the players who support the hypothesis that the simplest explanation (me being scum) must be right, and suggest lynching me, are acting weird. Why are they not voting me yet? Javert? David? Please, convince me (and everyone else) that you are not scum weighting pro's and con's.

[Edgerobin]

Edge implying that it was some gambit to discredit Ice's claim (which was obviously true)

huh, sorry, DP, but it was not

obviously true

to me yesterday. Was it to you?

and also to frame him

(LOLWOT how did they know this was going to happen)

There is already enough confusion, DP, you should really avoid misrepping people:

there is a high chance that one of the mafias no-killed to disprove ICE's dying posts,

and now, seeing there is a RB

, they are trying to frame the target of the RB.

[Edgerobin]

Amrun's logic seems pretty solid. Personally, I have a different opinion on a couple of points. First: Javert is slightly scummy to me. DP's recent activity is intriguingly weird. The two main events of the last pages are an attempt at telling Oso what to do at night, on which I already commented, and DP denying the option of a mafia no-kill. I could ask him to clarify this point, but to be honest what bothers me is that he is insisting on the existence of a doc. I smell a soft-fishing here. By all means, if a doc saved me, he must not claim to save my neck. We are very likely losing our claimed town rb tonight - if his claim, as I think, is true.

Rob's case on DP looked ill-defined at day start (see my ISO #6). Now not only DP tries to discuss in-thread the existence of a doc, but Javert is trying to plan Oso's future night activity. As their scumminess increases, Rob gains townpoints.

I am sick of only posting about me being blocked and scum not killing or stuff like that. I am now casting my vote.

vote: DP

[Edgerobin]

This is the Gun Mafia thread http://www.quicktopic.com/45/H/epMRr7EL5yQ

However, I disagree on the fact that this game was balanced. Oso's ability was overpowered, he was like a cop+doc, and there even was an extra cop AND a 50% doc.

Adding 1shot nk immunity makes each scum party stronger against each other; but it plays no role in making it balanced vs town. This game was, in my opinion, almost impossible to win from the POV of scum.

Another thing: I honestly think that outing the info's ICE outed before being lynched is a violation of rule 3.4.

not just us, but both scum parties were in a very difficult situation in the first place. Game was broken by ICE damaging his own party by revealing:
1) daytalk
2) double mafia setup

Too bad... If you want a suggestion, mod, you should eliminate the super-roleblocker. Replacing him with doc and 50% doc with nurse, and eliminating the 1shot nk immunity for at least 1 scum player in each team, would have solved a lot of balance-related problems.

[Edgerobin]

nope, I have to insist: it really added no balance at all. Once the RB had claimed, there was a doc to protect him:
think about it in projection:

D2 rb claims, either with a likely scum OR with a likely inno
N2 scum try to kill RB
D3 RB does not die, it becomes evident to both teams that there also is a doc, cuz RB cannot block both mafias
N3 HYPOTHETICAL BEST SCENARIO: one of the mafia's kills the doc
D4...
N4 one of the mafia's kills the RB

at this point, which is supposed to be a lucky-for-scum situation, RB blocked (= gets infos on inno's and guilties with high level of precision) for 3 nights and cop will be able to investigate for 4 nights. Who cares if the cross fire is almost impossible? Both scum teams are helpless against town.

How can this be balanced? And what advantage would it be to the gun mafia to start killing the knife mafia?

I agree with you that the reviewers should have done better. However, I may open a thread in Mafia Discussion, cuz the dynamics of this setup are interesting and they are worth discussing.

I'll let you know if I do.