Mini 542 - Game Over

[Mills]

I am usually known as being pretty vocal and I definitely won't be afraid to give my opinion on anything (whether it's asked for or not).

Vote: spurgistan

I don't know why!

[Mills]

I am usually known as being pretty vocal and I definitely won't be afraid to give my opinion on anything (whether it's asked for or not).

Vote: spurgistan

I don't know why!

Edit By Way Of Post

Rather, I mean that I don't know why you voted for him and would like to better know the meta reasons some of you vote for each other right off the bat.

[Mills]

OK, my first meta thing is that I tend to make my first random vote who I should have voted for in my last completed game . DD was scum in my last one. I seem to play a lot of games with players that had previously been scum in my games.

ANd by the way, these are "random votes". You don't really need an explanation until the game gets going.

I agree - more or less. I only asked for you to explain further because you hinted at a reason without expanding upon it and I found myself curious.

BTW Mills, are you an IRC guy? You've been on the site since April, and this is your first game?

I have played Mafia elsewhere before but never on Mafiascum. I signed up earlier in the year so I could read some of the games and participate in the Discussion Forum.

[Mills]

Unvote

Vote:Death's Door

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

[Mills]

Unvote
Vote:Death's Door

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?

Moreover, why is DD's (Death's Door's) "random" (obviously, no vote other than stupid dice votes are random) vote even worthy of comment, yet alone scummy? If it was OMGUS, why is that scummy at this stage?

I'm not sure if you read (or understood) my post properly so I will reiterate.

1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"

2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he

wanted

to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.

[Mills]

1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"

What a coincidence! Because we don't form random lynching wagons here either!

Joking aside: The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.

Lynching randomly is very bad (*shock*) but wagoning randomly is very good.

You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean? It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to) that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.

It could mean that I have no idea how random wagons work

here

or rather, at least, how you perceive they work since I can merely take your personal word for it at the moment due to my lack of experience on this particular site and lack of opinion on this matter from other players at the current time.

Regarding your second suggestion, I find this somewhat ludicrous. While it is certainly possible that I am scum (just as it is possible that I am town) and while it is certainly possible that spurgistan is town (just as it is possible he is scum), your deduction here doesn't really follow. Allow me to use a (flawed) induction proof in saying that I have never taken part in a game where a scum who voted for a townie FIRST (before a bandwagon was even likely to occur) then got off the said bandwagon because he was afraid of being associated with it. Why would any scum want to get off a bandwagon here if they were the FIRST to vote? Only a moron would associate the first person to vote as 'part of the bandwagon'. A scum would usually be able to wash his hands of responsibility by being first on a bandwagon because it wasn't a bandwagon at the point that he got on. Again, that's not to say that my alignment or spurgistan's alignment is in any way proven by this particular occurence of events, but it does make it pretty clear that this second

particular

deduction of yours is pretty ill thought-out.

You are welcome to discuss any other possibilities that you feel you can deduce from my vote and unvote.

2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.

So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?

I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.

No - an OMGUS vote is not always a scumtell.

No - a "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

No - an OMGUS "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

Yes - voting for someone because

you want to

(no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell.

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.

[Mills]

I'm not explaining a fourth time. You've obviously missed the point on both issues.

[Mills]

Where I come from, you place a vote to get things done. I placed a vote to get information. I removed it once I had that information. The timing does seem unfortunate since you claim it was in response to your casting of suspicion on a bandwagon. I assure you it wasn't. I removed it when I returned.

Regarding the vote on DD, I don't intend to start a wagon on anyone. I wish for everyone to make up their own minds and if you don't agree with my vote on DD then by all means do not vote for him. I have very rarely seen anyone ever vote seriously on day one without a gut-based vote and I do not think that there is anything wrong with this. Do not put 'words' in my mouth by implying that I intend to create bangwagons on people however.

You are certainly entitled to your vote but I hope you can see that half of what you are basing it on is misinformed and the other half circumstantial at best. To each their own.

Votecount up to Post 50

Death's Door (2) - spurgistan, Mills
Hypatia (1) - Mr. President
Jennar (1) - Hypatia
Mills (1) - Ythill
Mookeh (1) - Jennar
Mr. President (1) - Dean Harper
spurgistan (1) - Death's Door
vollkan (1) - Mookeh
Ythill (1) - KradDrol

Not Voting (2) - Autolycus, vollkan

7 to lynch.

[Mills]

Thanks for all the games to read. Looks like I'll be busy for awhile.

About that wagon on Spurg: voting without a reason, bandwagoning, and following are all a bit scummy. What are you trying to accomplish here?

I went back to read the thread and, now that I think about it, you weren't even questioning me here. You questioned votes 2, 3 and 4 for the above three reasons. I returned to the thread some time later, drew my own conclusion about those bandwagoners (in particular Death's Door), read your post and agreed with you, and changed my vote accordingly. So I guess it makes no sense to suggest that I changed my vote in response to your accusations since I was never accused by you in the first place.

[Mills]

@ Death's Door

I'm not trying to suggest that I have gleamed anything

conclusive

from your initial post. It was just a gut feeling and I can't expect anyone/everyone to necessarily have the same gut feeling.

I merely voted because of that feeling since I felt it was a more meaningful vote than my initial one.

For the record, I would be horrified if everyone just jumped aboard my feeling and voted you to lynch. I expect everyone to form their own opinions about who they find suspicious and to vote accordingly. At that early stage, yours was the vote I liked least out of votes 2, 3 and 4 on spurgistan - and as I said, it was mostly a gut feeling.

[Mills]

Rereading the thread, it seems that with the way mafia is played here, perhaps I should have used a FoS on Death's Door. Where I come from, we sort of abandoned all use of FoS (unless you wanted to accuse someone but already had a vote on another person) and just simply vote for a person to say we are suspicious of them. I believe it came about since we felt, in the end, one vote is just that... a single vote (out of many that you need to lynch a player).

I would appreciate if some of you could give your opinion on whether you think that a FoS would have been more appropriate given my simple gut feeling and lack of any real evidence. If so, I will try to play in a way that you are more accustomed to at MafiaScum.

[Mills]

Do not put 'words' in my mouth by implying that I intend to create bangwagons on people however.

I never implied this intention. I asked a fair question considering your previous posts. If the question implied any accusation, it was that you vote too quickly without quantifiable reasons. Let me rephrase the question...

What things are you trying to get done with your vote on DD?

I am voting to say that this is my current suspect. The reasons may be limited to something as unfortunately wishy-washy as gut feeling but given how recently the game has started and the lack of real information, I do not think that such a vote is necessarily inappropriate.

I went back to read the thread and, now that I think about it, you weren't even questioning me here. You questioned votes 2, 3 and 4 for the above three reasons.

For the record, I was only questioning votes 3 & 4 because DD's vote seemed "random" to me. Regardless of whom I was directly questioning, I had cast suspicion on the wagon. If your vote was an innocent quest for information, then the timing of your unvote was indeed unfortunate.

It seems obvious that spurg would have shared that particular information had you simply asked for it. Why did you feel you had to vote to prompt it from him?

I think I mentioned this earlier but, where I usually play mafia, tossing out an early vote is not considered to be any major action (since it takes so many votes to lynch). We usually use votes on players to get them to respond quicker to questions. It's sort of a "Hey - I didn't like this, it seemed scummy to me - please explain" rather than a "I'm voting to lynch you."


I think they are both ultimately issues of play-style.

[Mills]

Not really. Bunch of random votes followed by two days of discussion on mafia theory and playstyles. Very little of substance to go off of.

Is this all you are going to post until someone else gets lynched and you feel you can contribute? It's a bit silly when a player posts practically nothing until the other players lynch someone for him. It's clever though I guess. You get to fly under the radar and you have zero accountability if a townsperson gets lynched. Maybe we should all play like this!

[Mills]

I'm not going to comment in any great detail because vollkan already said anything that I would say in response to KradDrol's last post. Suffice to say that I had an incredulous smile on my face the whole time I was reading it.

Regarding the downtime, as much as I hate that you won't be posting for another week or so, I suspect that you won't be the only player in this boat. I may not like it but I accept it - everyone has family to attend to at this time of year.

[Mills]

Needless to say, Mills is not a unique offender in respect of vote-hopping (If you really want to call 2 votes vote-hopping). True, both of his votes were serious ones, but I don't see how that bears any contingency on his actions being scummy.

I just want to quickly point out that my first vote for spurgistan was not a serious one. Indeed, how could it be at that early stage? As I have said, I voted 'to get information' because it is how I am accustomed to playing. It was not serious in the sense that the vote was placed because I thought he was scum.

I will also reiterate that my vote for Death's Door

was

a serious one - albeit with what I freely admit is a weak reason (in the sense that it is only a gut feeling). Like I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with my vote when it is based on an inherently

personal

reason.

Sorry to rehash but I wanted to make it completely clear again since the both of you recently suggested that the first vote was serious and/or part of vote-hopping.

[Mills]

I personally feel a little safe with Mills around because of this post:

I don't. Mills' criticism of KradDrol is justified, but I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum. It's not a tell either way, I'm afraid.

1. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It's not a tell either way because both town or scum could make a post like that. I want to make that absolutely clear before I move onto point 2.

2. I can definitely see scum making that point though as a way to discredit any trust that another player (in this case myself I guess) might have built up (with whoever made that post - I don't even remember!). And if I were scum looking to make a post like the one you just did, I would probably make the same blanket statement such as "I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum" whether it was true or not. If you are town, you have no reason to lie and if you are scum you

could

be making the 'evidence' up as a way to credit your post. Could you please link to the previous game you were in as scum where you made a post such as this?

I hope that explanation made sense. Complicated logic arguments are always so difficult to explain when typed.

[Mills]

I know! I was just thinking that... setting Mafia

homework

and so close to Christmas too!

Thanks - I'll check it out.

[Mills]

hey, it would be really helpful if you guys could quote things by opening a separate window where you quote and write about it and then cut and paste into your post window. That would just make it easier to see who you are quoting, and you wont have to type it in.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but I'd rather not quote posts from other games. People will get so confused. I normally quote when I reply though.

I think he just wants us to be careful with our BBCode so that we always say who we are quoting. Some quotes above mention who we quoted, some don't (ie. they just say "Quote:").

[Mills]

I assume he is saying that for every 9 posts you make, 4 contain content and 5 do not.

[Mills]

I'm taking a break for 24-48 hours. Don't expect to see any content from me but I'll still read every so often. I'll make a largish post when I 'return'.

[Mills]

OK - I've taken some time off to rethink the way people are playing this game and give some proper consideration to something that has been bugging me. I have 'fantastic' luck so the person I am about to 'accuse' is the person who has just said they are going to be away for a day or so (Mookeh if you haven't been paying attention). Looking forward to seeing his reply when he gets back.

I'm going to get rid of all the tiered quoting because it quickly becomes confusing and present it in chronological order.



It starts off with KradDrol drama:

Not really. Bunch of random votes followed by two days of discussion on mafia theory and playstyles. Very little of substance to go off of.

Is this all you are going to post until someone else gets lynched and you feel you can contribute? It's a bit silly when a player posts practically nothing until the other players lynch someone for him. It's clever though I guess. You get to fly under the radar and you have zero accountability if a townsperson gets lynched. Maybe we should all play like this!

I personally feel a little safe with Mills around because of this post: {

Mills' Edit: He is referring to the post above.

}

It makes me feel a little like he is trying to scumhunt, and his answers for questions toward him seem to make sense so i feel slightly safe with him right now.

Mookeh then says:

I don't. Mills' criticism of KradDrol is justified, but I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum. It's not a tell either way, I'm afraid.

And I reply:

1. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It's not a tell either way because both town or scum could make a post like that. I want to make that absolutely clear before I move onto point 2.

2. I can definitely see scum making that point though as a way to discredit any trust that another player (in this case myself I guess) might have built up (with whoever made that post - I don't even remember!). And if I were scum looking to make a post like the one you just did, I would probably make the same blanket statement such as "I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum" whether it was true or not. If you are town, you have no reason to lie and if you are scum you

could

be making the 'evidence' up as a way to credit your post. Could you please link to the previous game you were in as scum where you made a post such as this?

I hope that explanation made sense. Complicated logic arguments are always so difficult to explain when typed.

And Mookeh replies:

Sure. Newbie 496 is the game in question. Post #89. And damn you for making me look that up.

He also follows up with this reply half an hour later:

Specifically referring to the 'looking for a nice speedlynch, or a bandwagon to jump on?' bit. I was trying to plant some seeds of doubt in a Townie in that game, and I was succesful - he got lynched. Mind you, I lost that game anyway.

Not saying that Mills is scum because of that - like I said, it's a non-tell. I'm just getting the impression that some people might get carried away a bit and I'm emphasizing to keep your eye on everyone just now. Last time I was a Townie and we disregarded someone because he seemed so innocent,

he

turned out to be Scum. Open 45 if you want a bit more meta.

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (

which I agree with

) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game. And then he follows it up with a post soon after and possibly (?) tries to steer the topic away by suggesting a third game to look at. I'm having a hard time working out if I am imagining this but I am just not seeing the connection.



Here is a copy of his post from the game he links for reference but it might be better if you check out the game yourself for extra context:

I am new and don't even know what a LoS is, but Gorckat has given me no reason to think he is not scum therefore my vote stands.

List of Suspects - basically a short summary of the impressions you get from each person, and the conclusion you have drawn so far. I'd like to point out that "

no reason he is not scum

" is really bad logic to vote someone. There should be a reason he

is

scum.

I would think Gorckat would have gotten a bit more paranoid when he was 1 vote away from being lynched. Funny you are the one that unvoted him back to 2 votes. Maybe it's you two that are really looking forward to nightfall!!

It is funny he didn't get more paranoid - I certainly would have made a bigger case of it. But that's as far as your agument goes. I unvoted him because I voted for him in the random stage and forgot to unvote, so there's no possible way that can be a motive of any kind.

Your BS argument towards gorckat is noted, as is your OMGUS accusation (look it up on the Wiki if you don't know what it is) and your reluctance to vote anything until the rest has voted.

Looking for a speedlynch? Or a nice bandwagon to jump on?

{

Mills' Edit: I have italicised the part of the post that Mookeh says he was referencing.

}

Serious

FoS: SlySly

. Would've been a vote except you

are

new and this could just be sloppy playing on your part, but you're doing nothing to qualm my suspicions. Still waiting for IH so I can decide on what to do. Would also like to hear a bit more from Vaanshir.

Thoughts?

[Mills]

I don't base votes on how players have played in previous games. I'm asking if he was caught in a lie or if I'm imagining it.

[Mills]

I don't base votes on how players have played in previous games. I'm asking if he was caught in a lie or if I'm imagining it.

Edit By Way Of Post:

Rather, I don't

usually

base votes on how players have played in previous games. I have made exceptions to this rule when a player is so retarded that it's worth killing him no matter what. Some players really are so bad that they are handicaps to town. :/ Thankfully it doesn't seem like we have any of those players here though.

[Mills]

I think you misunderstood.

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't

necessarily

pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

He then used that post as empirical evidence. But the 'evidence' doesn't really support his original post - in which case his initial claim that he had such evidence is a lie.

And townies don't have a reason to lie.

I assume it makes better sense now...

I really don't see how you jumped to the possibility that me and Mookeh are a scum-pair from that series of events. I'm seriously boggling at your conclusion so I figure you misunderstood in some way.

[Mills]

Perhaps it is more likely that we are misunderstanding something that Mookeh said or perhaps it is possible that it was a mistake on his behalf but if we

discount both of those as possibilities for purposes of discussion

then I continue to boggle at why you think a scum would not consider lying in that situation as a third possibility. Scum lie all the time to support their posts. But you don't even list it as a possibility - in fact, you consider it

more possible

that Mookeh is somehow my scum buddy because he tried to make me look more suspicious (which is perhaps the oddest conclusion of all that anyone could make). I appreciate that you now say that your suggestion is not very possible at all, but at a bare minimum you have definitely said that it is

more possible

than a clearly much simpler (and as a result more possible if we're being realistic) explanation.


To sum up again in nice point form since that paragraph is quite verbose:

1. It appears that Mookeh has an incongruency in his posts.

2. I suggest that one of three things has taken place:
(i) I am misunderstanding;
(ii) Mookeh has made a mistake;
(iii) Mookeh is scum and has

lied on purpose

to support his post.

3. vollkan suggests that one of three things has taken place:
(i) I am misunderstanding;
(ii) Mookeh has made a mistake;
(iii) Mookeh is scum

with Mills

and has

lied on purpose

in order to

'attack' Mills

because scum would do this for some reason (I'm not really sure what this reason is but vollkan seems to think there might be a reason that involves 'defending' me. I don't see how raising suspicion on me is 'defending' me so I will continue to boggle for now).

4. Mills boggles because your possibility #3 is completely insane compared to my possibility #3 which is entirely much more likely and you don't even

consider it to be a possibility

.

My eyes are bugging out of my head right now.

[Mills]

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (

which I agree with

) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game.

Well, I can - so maybe I'm interpreting it differently or you haven't been paying attention. His post was criticizing him for standing on the sidelines and basically waiting for a lynch. My post was criticizing that player for standing on the sidelines and maybe waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. Exact same thing.

Now, the fact that you didn't read it properly shows you're either sloppy or you're trying to strawman me. At this point I was going for sloppy,

but

:

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't necessarily pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

That's an obvious strawman you're being caught on. I never said I had empirical evidence. All I said I was playing in a previous game and used that argument as well. You proceeded to ask for a link. That's a spin, no matter how you look at it.

I did not make a mistake, and I did not lie. I'll post a simple version of what just took place:

Mookeh:

Yeah it's basically a non-tell, used it in another game where I was scum.

Mills:

Link?

Mookeh:

Here you go.

Mills:

I don't see the connection! You're LYING! You said you had empirical evidence!

Mookeh:

Wtf?

Get my point?

It makes more sense to me now with your explanation so I am happy to chalk it up to a misunderstanding on my part. I went back to re-read again and it definitely makes more sense in the context of some other posts by you in that game.

Regarding your claims that I was straw-manning you, I find that a little silly. I was careful to suggest that I could definitely be misunderstanding or that it could also have been a mistake on your behalf. I do not think I was incorrect in my assertion that you claimed to have empirical evidence either.

Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality.

You were using a direct example from a previous game as proof that my post was a null-tell, ie. empirical evidence. The issue was over whether it was actually relevant and upon further reflection I think it was.

[Mills]

I also hate to make this post now since the timing will look scummy right after Ythill's post but I have become a little concerned about vollkan for a different reason.

Throughout that whole exchange, he took the time to make relatively long posts and analyse my initial argument (albeit with a major misunderstanding along the way). This resulted in me having to re-explain 3-4 times what I was thinking and I think this made it look more and more like I was

attacking

Mookeh over and over again. When the misunderstanding was finally resolved, he simply posts to say that he misunderstood and provides no further analysis now that he does understand. This seems strange given how diligentyly he has been playing and given that he had given proper (incorrect) analysis before, I wonder why he would choose not to give proper (correct) analysis now. I'm wondering if the misunderstanding was set up for the purpose of making it seem as if I wanted to crucify Mookeh.

I will admit however that this is a pretty elaborate thing to pull off were it intentional so I feel that in some way mitigates its likelihood of being true.

[Mills]

@ vollkan: You are absolutely right. Sorry - I withdraw that as a possibility.

Unvote

I suspect I will eventually be voting for a much better reason than the one I used for Death's Door. My vote for him hardly seems appropriate anymore.

I would like to hear more from the other players and hopefully it will improve after New Years. It feels like there are only four of us talking (myself, vollkan, Ythill, Mookeh). I realise I may be considered to be over-active but some players are barely saying anything at all! (NB: This is not a call out to

everyone

that I didn't list above since I realise some others are making an effort to post quality over quantity - I just couldn't remember more names offhand).

[Mills]

That whole debate over Mookeh's proof just seemed unnecessary. Honestly, why would he fake the proof? I agreed with him before his link, and after I didn't really see anything wrong with it. Yes, this argument is done, but I'm just saying what I thought about it.

Anyway, I think we need to start moving in on somebody to lynch soon-ish. We have a 3 week deadline per day, right? It's been what, a week and a half? We have some players who won't be posting until probably after New Years, so I think we might be left with a short amoutn of time to come to a consensus, so we should probably put our thinking caps on now.


Mr. Presdient, is this temporary, or do you want replaced? You haven't posted much at all even with computer access, so do you think you can contribute to this game or not? It really sucks to have a blank slot in your player list.

whoa, hrsh much? who do u have n mind, lifeless?

Don't take it personally but I agree with him. If you can barely find time to read the game and the best we can expect are mostly short posts in the abominable text-speak then I too would prefer you to get replaced.

[Mills]

@ Bush: could you explain what was meant by "hrsh much?" in your last post?

@ spurg: Mind posting something about

this

game?

I assume he means "Harsh, much?".

[Mills]

I'm waiting for the lurkie-lurks to say something useful but it is depressing (as someone who is a very active player) to come back to the thread and see no new posts from people who have been absent for close to a week.

[Mills]

Sigh... Lurky McLurkerson reporting back for duty.

I really don't see anything to comment on in the past few pages. The discussion about other games has sort of ended, and I'm glad of it because I think it would have just gone off into a semantics argument again. I'd be up for bandwagoning Mr. Pres if only for OMGUS, but

it's impossible to get any information out of lurkers.

I found this post ironic and amusing. hehe

[Mills]

ie. the date of our Day 1 deadline.

Well, it's certainly a great way not to get lynched on Day One. Not participating at all!

[Mills]

Requesting a 1 week extension since the situation regarding several players being absent is quite ridiculous.

[Mills]

I'll re-read within 24-26 hours and have a vote and thoughts.

[Mills]

I'll re-read within 24-26 hours and have a vote and thoughts.

I actually meant 24-36 hours. :/ It's 12:30 PM here and I promise I'll have it up by tonight.

Everyone checking in and reading this, please make an effort to be more active in the next few days. We are going to need to reach a consensus and we have done nothing of the sort judging by our current vote count. I am sure that I am still high on suspicion meters and even though I personally know that I'm town (obviously) I would support a lynch on me (if that was where consensus was headed) more than I would a no lynch. In other words, it's important that we reach

consensus

and lynch

someone

and I'm not afraid to admit that it could be me! Let's get active people!!

[Mills]

Ok. So I after a re-read I have my number one suspect in Mookeh. Let's see if I can convince the rest of you.

This is mostly a general feeling based on his playstyle. I felt like he was quite an active player (at least after Ythill, vollkan and myself) but after a re-read this isn't all that true. He certainly isn't inactive but I wouldn't call him active (and I realise holidays can and have influenced this).

Looking through his posts, the majority attempt to provide 'signal' (as opposed to 'noise') but I couldn't help feeling that the majority of them were subtly contentless. A lot of the posts just seem to be parroting what other people have said (ie. Post 79) or making general statements about mafia and this game (ie. Post 53).

In addition, it seems like he is taking the opportunity to have little digs at people. I'm not sure if I'm stretching here since townspeople are supposed to be actively scum hunting but it just feels, to me, like he is tossing out little attacks so that the target is made to look slightly scummier but people don't really remember him as being responsible for the 'attack' so that he doesn't become memorable for it. Examples would include where he attacks Hypatia in Post 35, myself in Post 79, Ythill (mistakenly) in Post 102 before correcting the target to KradDrol and Jennar in Post 190 for 'something he can't put his finger on'). Obviously there are other players in this game who have attacked multiple people (as a good townsperson should) but I just can't help but feel that it is a little different here through the way the 'attacks' have been carried out.

I agree there isn't a dearth of evidence here but I feel that there is enough to combine with my own gut feeling and knowledge of generic scum playstyles to toss out a vote.

Vote: Mookeh

I admit I am concerned that some of you will not agree with me and that this post might not prove helpful since I am adding another suspect to our pile (with a fastly approaching lynch and a real lack of consensus among us) but I felt it was important to speak what I truely felt and this is it.

[Mills]

LOL. Look back @ #206. The mod extended the deadline four days.

I thought everyone already knew this!

We still don't have a lot of time to come to consensus (but it's better than it was before).

[Mills]

For the record, it made me sad to spend all that time re-reading the thread and making a case to not even receive any indication that my post was even read at all.

I JUST WANT TO BE LOVED

[Mills]

I still think DD's post was scummy but I have let it lie since I know none of you agree with me. I assumed you would prefer that I didn't reiterate my feelings on it over and over again but since you now claim that I tried to forget all about it and that this was scummy of me, I need to point out that you are wrong and I still think he was suspicious for that post.

Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...

Vote: Spurgistan

because we NK'd a vanilla instead of a power role. (Jordan thought we might wanna lynch you but we figured Petunho was town-ier and was on to us in a way)

I just felt like it was a random vote with a non-serious OMGUS thrown in (which is perfectly fine) but scum tend to second-guess themselves and sometimes ramble which is what I see when he puts that whole explanation on the end of his vote. I still say it is suspicious and to hell with you all if you disagree. I just found Mookeh more suspicious for the above reasons.

I must say, if I'm scum, I'm doing a pretty horrible job. What kind of experienced player gets a scum role, then tries to convince everyone to lynch a player that no one has even really considered. We're heading into WIFOM territory but, were I scum, I could have easily jumped on a spurgistan bandwagon when 24 hours ago it looked like he would be an easy consensus lynch. My gut still says he is town though and my investigations say Mookeh isn't. So I voted accordingly.

[Mills]

@ Ythill

You claim that me, Dean and Hypatia are your top 3 suspects but your analysis completely ignores Dean and Hypatia under every heading you list. I would like to see your analysis on those 2 as well under your headings (except power role possibilities because I think it was stupid of you to even go there in the first place).

I also don't see how you can put Dean in your top 3 but call spurgistan 'a last resort'. I can't see any difference between them not least of all because both barely post. It seems to me like you are forcing a case here.

[Mills]

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%). I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar.

I have to admit that I am not feeling these cases personally but I will make an effort to do another read-through in the next 12-16 hours focussing on them specifically to see if I agree with you more then. I'll keep you informed.

[Mills]

I am not afraid to admit that I had trouble explaining my vote on DD which I think was clear to all involved. It was a vote for a 'wishy-washy' (perhaps?) reason and I tried to say it was a gut vote (which essentially it was) but I have

definitely

contradicted myself in the explanation over several posts. I'm not really sure how to defend that since contradictions are horribly scummy things to make in a game of mafia so I suppose I will let you all individually decide for yourselves if I was scum trying to make a case on DD at that point in time to get him taken down on Day 1. All I can do is admit that I made a mistake in my explanation and suggest that I feel the correct explanation is what I have just said in my previous post. It never ceases to amaze me how much a little extra time for contemplation and a few more re-reads can make things clearer in your mind and I feel I have gone from befuddled (originally explaining the vote) to a state of some clarity (now explaining the vote). But again, I will not shy away from admitting that I did contradict myself and, if I am not lynched today, it is probably fair to say that I deserve heavier observation for that mistake. I apologise for my befuddlement.

[Mills]

I am not afraid to admit that I had trouble explaining my vote on DD which I think was clear to all involved. It was a vote for a 'wishy-washy' (perhaps?) reason and I tried to say it was a gut vote (which essentially it was) but I have

definitely

contradicted myself in the explanation over several posts. I'm not really sure how to defend that since contradictions are horribly scummy things to make in a game of mafia so I suppose I will let you all individually decide for yourselves if I was scum trying to make a case on DD at that point in time to get him taken down on Day 1. All I can do is admit that I made a mistake in my explanation and suggest that I feel the correct explanation is what I have just said in my previous post. It never ceases to amaze me how much a little extra time for contemplation and a few more re-reads can make things clearer in your mind and I feel I have gone from befuddled (originally explaining the vote) to a state of some clarity (now explaining the vote). But again, I will not shy away from admitting that I did contradict myself and, if I am not lynched today, it is probably fair to say that I deserve heavier observation for that mistake. I apologise for my befuddlement.

Dear god I am burying myself.

Upon further reflection, I don't think I have contradicted myself as much as I, at first, thought. The rest of what I said was correct though (ie. I had trouble explaining it at first and did a poor job of it).

I originally said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

I think I should have said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS

vote

but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

ie. It was an 'OMGUS' so I have used this term synomonously here for 'vote' which was a horrible, horrible idea and put the wrong focus on my argument.

I feel I have explained the vote much, much better in the previous previous post and I hope (assuming you can get past the infelicities in my language) that you can see that I have been trying to say the same thing all along and I just haven't explained it very well. Which makes the whole thing look like a series of contradictions.

Absolutely wonderful.

Votecount up to Post 250

Mills (2) - KradDrol, Ythill
spurgistan (2) - Jennar, Hypatia
Death's Door (1) - spurgistan
KradDrol (1) - vollkan
Mookeh (1) - Mills
Ythill (1) - Dean Harper

Not Voting (4) - Death's Door, klebian, Mookeh, Mr. President

7 to lynch.

[Mills]

I am not afraid to admit that I had trouble explaining my vote on DD which I think was clear to all involved.

Oh? I remind you of what you said back then:

I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.

and then:

I'm not explaining a fourth time. You've obviously missed the point on both issues.

I don't raise this as another contradiction, but in these posts you make it sound like this is my fault for not understanding you, whereas now you are fairly clear that you were having trouble. If you were really having problems explaining it, then it's odd that you would take such an approach, rather than saying: "Look, I'm sorry but I am having trouble articulating this." etc.

All I can do is admit that I made a mistake in my explanation and suggest that I feel the correct explanation is what I have just said in my previous post.

I expected something like this would happen when I posted:

See, Krad's response here is a good one, in that he just admits he made a mistake, rather than pressing the issue any further.

I knew when I posted this that it would raise a prickly scenario the next time somebody confesses to a cock-up. See, the issue now exists as to whether Mills is trying to take advantage of the fact that I showed some leniency to KradDrol for an admission.

Dear god I am burying myself. Upon further reflection, I don't think I have contradicted myself as much as I, at first, thought. The rest of what I said was correct though (ie. I had trouble explaining it at first and did a poor job of it).

I originally said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

I think I should have said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS vote but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

ie. It was an 'OMGUS' so I have used this term synomonously here for 'vote' which was a horrible, horrible idea and put the wrong focus on my argument.

I feel I have explained the vote much, much better in the previous previous post and I hope (assuming you can get past the infelicities in my language) that you can see that I have been trying to say the same thing all along and I just haven't explained it very well. Which makes the whole thing look like a series of contradictions. Absolutely wonderful.

OMGUS = OMGUS vote.

There is no difference here. In both cases it is the OMGUS that he needs to pass off as something else.

If you had made no mention of OMGUS, then maybe you would have a point, but you used the word OMGUS and it featured in your subsequent explanations as well.

Also, you cut part of the first quote out.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

Now, if OMGUS is a synonym for "vote" than we have no problem. However, it still seems bizarre that in the first post you focus on the OMGUS itself, but then later on the OMGUS becomes a factor along with the meta.

Your explanation is "sufficient" (it covers everything) but it's also very slippery.

Vollkan, at the current time, I believe you to be a town player and I am not upset for you pointing holes in things because, assuming I pick your alignment correctly, you are just doing your job. But you are one of the most frustrating players I have ever played with (

I have seriously considered replacing about 4 times due to your playstyle alone - *shrug*

) because you refuse to read between the lines sometimes or you just make up your own interpretation half the time which is completely at odds with what the original poster (in this case, me) is saying.

Perhaps it was clear to me (inside my very being or whatever you want to call it) why I found DD suspicious, but apparently I wasn't explaining it very well (which is why you needed 4 explanations and

still

couldn't understand what I was saying). At the time, I didn't think I was explaining it poorly at all.

We often forget that things are not so simple for other people to see as they are for ourselves to see. Have you never had a big-picture conversation in real life and failed to explain some little-picture detail appropriately? Would you not say, in such a situation, that your failure to discuss that detail would be because you understood it to be true, perhaps too obvious, to mention? I am sure you have experienced such a situation. What has happened here is not exactly the same but is similar. Frankly, I still maintain that I was explaining it fairly well at the time (unfortunately I was explaining the

wrong

thing 'fairly well') but of course 'fairly well' is a matter of interpretation and I am sure you disagree on that one.

When I said it was clear I was having trouble, I meant it in the context that upon further

recent

reflection (ie. the last few posts), I was able to give a different response that I felt more accurately reflected the original reason for my vote.

Anyway, I think I will let this issue lie unless people have further questions (and by all means, if you have them, ask them). That isn't to say that we should forget that I have made a mistake here (it is after all a scum-tell) but rather that I have no more to say on the issue unless there are questions to be answered.

[Mills]

I don't see how I can bring this up without it looking like I am trying to deflect heat but I admit I am a little gobsmacked that Ythill would vote for

information

instead of scumminess. Perhaps you think I am scummy too (you obviously do) but I don't see why an information argument

ever

needs to come into it (nor a power-role argument for that matter). Where I come from that is considered about as big a taboo as no lynch on Day One and I have been quietly wondering if that is an acceptable reason for lynching on this website.

[Mills]

# Jennar: confirmed scum would cast light suspicion on Krad and falsely clear vollkan/me; confirmed town would cast light suspicion on vollkan/me; wagon defenses would be solid and give us some good leads

Why would Jennar being confirmed scum cast suspicion on me? I don't recall ever defending Jennar.

Also, I'm getting the feeling that even if we were to bandwagon on spurgistan, that we wouldn't get a response. He's been gone for awhile now.

My suspect at the moment is vollkan. However, since I'm clearly in the minority there, and the fact that as much as I hate to admit it, lynching vollkan would pretty much cut out 90% of the discussion in this thread, I'm willing to let my suspicions go for today. I'd be willing to support a wagon on Mills, Hypatia, or Mookeh, with spurg as a last resort.

Whether a player is high-content or low-content should be irrelevant in the end if you find them scummy. Otherwise you'd be ruined in a game where all the high-content players rolled scum.

[Mills]

I've tried to summarise where consensus is heading using a points basis. The best choice suspect receives 5 points, the next best 4 points, etc. down to 1 (some people have 5 suspects).

It's obviously going to provide an

inaccurate

summary until some other players check in (we only have thoughts from about 6 people). I may have missed some people so let me know. I also wasn't positive what order KradDrol has some of his suspects in.


Dean Harper: Ythill (5)
Death's Door: ??
Hypatia: ??
Jennar: ??
klebian: ??
KradDrol: vollkan (5), Mills (3), Hypatia (3), Mookeh (3), spurgistan (1)
Mills: Mookeh (5), Hypatia (4), Ythill(3), Death's Door (2)
Mookeh: ??
Mr. President: ??
spurgistan: ??
vollkan: KradDrol (5), Jennar (4), spurgistan (3)
Ythill: Dean Harper (5), Mills (4), Hypatia (3), Klebian (2)


|

Hypatia (10)

|

Mookeh (8)

|

Ythill (8)

|

Mills (7)

| KradDrol (5) | Dean Harper (5) | vollkan (5) | Jennar (4) | spurgistan (4) | Death's Door (2) |

Klebian (2)

|

Mr President (0)

|

[Mills]

Mills: Mookeh (5), Hypatia (4), Ythill(3), Death's Door (2)

Just to cover this quickly since two of them are new mentions.



Hypatia - based on the amount of parroting I've seen of late. A few players mention a spurgistan bandwagon. She agrees. A few players mention they no longer think it's a good idea. She agrees. It concerned me. Also appears to be flying under the radar a little.



Ythill - Mostly a gut feeling. A little bit of his reactions to Mookeh thrown in to the mix. Most of his analyses seem to give Mookeh a pass or level light suspicion on him before changing direction again in the same few sentences to remove negation connotations.

Mookeh: I’m starting to see why everybody seems to like this guy. He often performs our reality checks and, though he hasn’t hunted a lot, what he has posted has seemed honest. Mookeh defends more than he attacks though, and I can’t help but feel that he’s trying too hard to stay on our good sides. We’ll see what happens when he gets back home.

Also seems to be a slight suggestion from Ythill that we ignore (for lack of a better word) Mookeh until he returns.

Mookeh: I disagree with some points of Mills’ case against Mookeh (specifically, I see Mookeh’s attacks as honest) but some of it is solid and telling. The only thing I’ve personally found scummy in Mookeh’s behavior is the way he seems to be trying to stay on everyone’s good side. Then again, maybe he’s just nice. LOL.

I find it a little contradictory that he says some of my case is solid and telling (ie. here is Ythill making some concessions that Mookeh is scummy) but then finishes off by saying the only thing Ythill finds scummy is how polite Mookeh is (ie. changing direction again in the same few sentences to remove negation connotations).



Anyway, just wanted to explain why I gave those points since I hadn't mentioned them before. I suspect the points on Ythill are irrelevant anyway since I don't think anyone else (except Dean Harper) finds Ythill suspicious.



I also owe vollkan a re-read on Jennar and KradDrol which might change my points allocation.

And I would also like everyone to check in so that we can get the full consensus list of points and a proper order on consensus suspicion (for example, I suspect I will move into first or second instead of fourth).

[Mills]

vollkan: KradDrol (5), Jennar (4), spurgistan (3)

That's incorrect (not that I blame you).

Krad and Jennar are my top 2, but Spurg (despite being the only other player I have named) is only a "last resort" candidate.

Earlier, I did say that a Jennar suspicion lynch sits equal with a Spurg lurker lynch, but my meaning there was made ambiguous in that I was responding to a post by Ythill.

I clarified my position later when I said:

My preferences:
1) KradDrol suspicion
2) Jennar suspicion
3) Lurking (Spurg seems the favourite for this...though I don't know)

* 2) is ranked above 3) due to information value.

Mills ought to be slipped in between 2) and 3), given the latest events (not so suspect in my mind as Jennar and Krad, though).

I'll change it so that you give me (3) points and spurgistan (1) point. If this is not suitable, let me know. I won't repost the count just yet since there is no point with half the players yet to check in.

[Mills]

That sounds fine, but Spurg can basically be substituted for "Any lurker" - because there are numerous viable candidates.

*shrug* I'll change him to (0) then.

I'm considering replacing out of this game since it's impossible to have a read on 50% of the players with barely any posts. Which sort of makes me sad. They should probably have different sign-ups for high content players and low content players. Stick all the lurkers in the same game.

[Mills]

I suspect it won't be my problem tomorrow.

[Mills]

Regarding Point 1, I reread the whole thread but I don't see the point in doing a PBPA on everyone. That's not how we (or I) play where I come from. I posted about my suspect because that seems like the thing to do without making everyone read a bunch of crap they probably aren't interested in.

Regarding Point 2, you are obviously a complete retard. I stated clearly that the list wasn't complete and hence incorrect. You have a giant whinge because you a third when half the people haven't even indicated their preferences and you are unlikely to feature on anyone else's suspects lists (resulting in you probably falling heavily). Myself, however? I will likely be high on a lot of people's suspect lists which will mean I will end up first... BUT YTHILL THINKS MILL IS SCUMMY FOR MAKING A LIST OF SCUMMY PEOPLE IN WHICH MILLS WILL BE FIRST. The retardation is mind-boggling. Then you spout crap like "Meanwhile, Mills rates Krad’s suspects as if they had been originally listed by Krad in order of priority" when I have made no asumptions of the sort and gave everyone in the middle the same amount of points and suggested (from memory) that KradDrol should clarify. You are stretching the facts to make a case here and you are doing a pretty bad job of it.

[Mills]

Regarding Point 2, you are obviously a complete retard. I stated clearly that the list wasn't complete and hence incorrect. You have a giant whinge because you a third when half the people haven't even indicated their preferences and you are unlikely to feature on anyone else's suspects lists (resulting in you probably falling heavily). Myself, however? I will likely be high on a lot of people's suspect lists which will mean I will end up first... BUT YTHILL THINKS MILL IS SCUMMY FOR MAKING A LIST OF SCUMMY PEOPLE IN WHICH MILLS WILL BE FIRST. The retardation is mind-boggling. Then you spout crap like "Meanwhile, Mills rates Krad’s suspects as if they had been originally listed by Krad in order of priority" when I have made no asumptions of the sort and gave everyone in the middle the same amount of points and suggested (from memory) that KradDrol should clarify. You are stretching the facts to make a case here and you are doing a pretty bad job of it.

Does Ythill seem short-sighted or unintelligent enough to make such glaring errors? Is he short enough on posting time that errors of this magnitude could be caused by him rushing? I think not on both counts.

[Mills]

I don't see how I have a conflict of interest for a list that I expect to end up

at the top of

and asked people to clarify their position over where applicable.

Do you see how pages and pages of a case that I can barely be bothered to read, let alone reply to, with its masses of paragraphs and conveniently long message, could affect the opinions of our less active players?

Moderator: Please replace me.

It is not fun to be in a game with 9 (mostly) inactive players, 1 who is a little crazy and 1 who thinks he needs to outdo a dictionary.

Not that I think that anyone will care but I would keep an eye on both Ythill and Mookeh. Perhaps more so Ythill since the person who provides so much content is a difficult one to lynch - regardless of alignment. Which makes him more dangerous if he is scum. A mafia-aligned town leader is never a good thing. Your fellow lurkers, while also possibly scum, will never be as potentially dangerous. Good luck.

[Mills]

unvote

vote: Mills

He makes a compelling case.

unvote

vote: Mills

[Mills]

I like the quote: "Someone trying to out-write the dictionary" as a description of who i am talking about. My personal reason for wanting a replacement is that Vollkan's incredibly long posts tend to bore me. Hopefully he wont make such long posts in the other game im just getting started on with him in it.

I actually wasn't talking about vollkan.

[Mills]

It was the most endearing term I could use to describe someone who frustrates me a little and I was feeling kind to a fellow Aussie. <3

[Mills]

Don't worry guys. Ythill has me

100% pegged correctly.

He is really good at this game. I submit. Hammer away.

[Mills]

Don't forget to listen to Ythill for the rest of the game in order to win!

My only regret is not having a second vote with which to hammer myself as a glorious tribue to the scum-hunter Ythill.

[Mills]

Ok, can someone help clear up this confusion? Moderator?

My role PM says I am not scum but Ythill says I am. Now, we all know Ythill is infallible, so have I received the correct role PM? Moderator??

[Mills]

Come back and hammer me Mookeh! You said you would be back 3 days ago. Perhaps you died in real life?

[Mills]

This post above is the one time in this game that you shouldn't listen to Ythill. Normally he is the greatest mafia player of all time but this time he has made a mistake. I should be lynched immediately.

[Mills]

This is the part where Ythill tries to convince you that he wasn't positive that I was scum. And maybe we should reconsider. But, of course, he really wants you to hammer anyway. Then, we get to Day 2 and he will claim my lynch wasn't his responsibility anyway. Afterall, Mills is a bad unintelligent player (he's probably going to expect you to remember the few times he already said this to support his case).

*shrug* I am dieing a useful death as long as you remember who it is that put me in the ground. With that purpose in mind, I have no qualms. Hammer away! Don't let Ythill get away tomorrow! Good luck!

[Mills]

I am genuinely asking you to lynch me and you think it's some ploy. PLEASE LYNCH ME. DON'T MAKE ME PASTE THE MAFIA GODFATHER ROLE PM.

[Mills]

People start pointing fingers at others without rhyme nor reason, suspicion runs rampant from Ythill, the best player on the entire website!

The result?

A trapdoor and a swift *CRACK* later, Mills is dead!

Mills, Mafia Godfather, is dead!

It is now Night One.

[Mills]

How often is there a godfather in a 12 player game? Thought you would know better than that vollkan. ROFL!!!

[Mills]

You'll have to wait and see. IT IS A MYSTERY.

[Mills]

(I was a Jester).

[Mills]

Post deleted, rule 6 and whatnot.

[Mills]

I found this game quite frustrating because of the inactivity of several players. Two out of three scum were heavily inactive at the start of the game (as well as several town) and that simply doesn't cut it. Lurking should not be a viable strategy - honestly, it's practically cheating. If you don't post, people can't get reads.

In any case, it's good to see I was correct about Mookeh. When push came to shove, no one else really came close on Day One. When no momentum came about, I felt I had to try and take down Ythill though because I thought he would hurt the town. I wasn't too far off since he made poor choices on Day One and Day Two but thankfully we won anyway.

I admit that I found vollkan very hard to read and didn't know what his alignment was.

Thanks for modding Chaos!

[Mills]

Also, Mookeh, if you're reading this -

I read your soul

.

[Mills]

I found it a hilarious way to burn out of mafia.

I'm used to playing on a forum where people know I read souls. When I'm asked to explain myself, I get bored quickly.

[Mills]

Worst Town Mistake:

Hypa's double investigation. I still can't fathom how she managed to edit and re-send an old investigation but I guess she did. BTW, I'm kind of glad she did because the runner up for this catergory was me for quite logically explaining how Mills couldn't possibly be a power-role.

I just have to say this: It was only logical in the sense that you used poor logic. A common mistake that many newer players make is to pidgeon-hole

all

players and call their alignment (or role) based on common townie/scum tells which hold "in most cases". A much better player (which typically comes with some more game experience - I understand you are new still) will make an attempt to work out the tells based on the individual player. You have made the assumption that

all town power-roles

will

never

suggest themselves as the lynch target. This certainly holds of some players who are either new to town power-roles or selfishly demand to live, but some of us wish to be as much a part of the suspicion process as any other player. In the same situation, I would almost always do the same thing - and if you continue this way without adjusting your playstyle to recognise that individual players don't all fit the same playstyle, you will continue to assume that I am not a power-role and continue to make the same mistake.

I hope what I have said makes sense and that you take it on board. You certainly aren't lacking for effort! To sum up, I think are you are still at the stage where you paint A, B and C as scum tells, X, Y and Z as town tells, D, E and F as power-role tells, etc. and then place players accordingly. If you really want to be a good player, you need to be able to say that

for that particular player

, only A and C are scum tells, X is a null-tell, E and F might actually mean that he is vanilla, etc.

Finally, as an aside, I will admit that this is difficult when you are new, and certainly not necessarily easy when you are experienced, since you will often be forced to play with players with whom you have no history. But in the end, you will find it worth it - especially when you don't try to lynch the cop who had done a wonderful job of convincing most of you he couldn't possibly be the cop (as a result of most of them likely subscribing to the same poor logic).