The First Mafia: Game Over

[petroleumjelly]

Leader: Equinox

Vote: beeboy

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: beeboy

Vote: Killthestory

[petroleumjelly]

anything else to say

No. But I am clearly not interested in either the Bulbazak wagon or the kraska77 wagon.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Killthestory, just yesterday you created a Mafia Discussion thread specifically about mafia strategy. A few choice quotes:

It's fun to try out new things, but it's also fun to do your own thing. It's fun to just play, and to play however you like, not conform to how others want you to play. That also applies to trying to fit in with certain playstyles. Don't try to do anything but just play and have fun.

Just don't worry, don't stress, just play the game. Keyword is play here because Mafia isn't a fucking chat room. If you're only memeing around in a game with absolutely no plan to help town, you shouldn't be playing. Period. Mafia is a game of fun, but you're also there to play the game.

Don't try to be something you're not, embrace yourself, and embrace others for who they are.

Asking for the rest of us to dictate your "strategy" this game is completely counter to your Mafia Discussion advice of "being yourself" and "not playing how others want you to play." So why are (were) you insisting on it?

2.)

Katsuki, I do not find Bulbazak or kraska77 scummy. I will grant that I do not think Bulbazak is playing very well (though for different reasons than he has been voted for). I did not care for kraska77's 'concern' over a Leader being elected so quickly (and I personally think we are better off just getting that portion over with unless we have a reason to wait), but with her join date being so new I don't find it concerning. Worth a push, but she had already been pushed on it. That said:

3.)

kraska77, your first two real votes of the game were based on the potential stifling of discussion due to quickly electing a Leader:

VOTE: sleepykrew way too early for a hammer

Hmm actually I changed my mind bulbazaka is a better place to place a vote

Really curious what the leader can do besides be untouchable. Regardless, holding off for now. Curious to see what happens.

holding off for now and curious to see what happens
and then helping cut off potential for conversation and stopping stuff from happening
And u didn't seem too upset with the quickhammer either, why?
VOTE: bulb

Now you have said that your vote was just a "normal RVS-y pressure vote". That does not seem accurate. Why are you backing away from your initial voting reasons and treating them as more "RVS"-y? They didn't look random to me.

Also noting that you have suggested that Bulbazak "get his act together."

~

4.)

As a note, my time will be limited for the next week or so as I am in the process of buying a house. I stayed home from work today to finish up some errands, and right now I am taking a break from sorting and packing. I usually will not post during these hours on weekdays.

Additionally, this game has way too many pages. I am going to kindly request that players not spam the thread. I have limited time, and I do not want to spend it reading and rereading a monstrosity of a game. Thanks in advance.

[petroleumjelly]

10 pages in 2 days in a 15p is too much?

Um.

Yes

. If we go to deadline (4 weeks) with that rate, Day One will last about 140 pages. Large Games should

end

in the 35-60 page range.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

kraska77, when you get the chance please answer my question from yesterday.

2.)

I believe that Bulbazak has the Politician role. But I am definitely not convinced he is Town -- and this is not yet taking into account Katsuki's claimed guilty result. Reading back to Day One, it looks like Bulbazak was largely concerned with crumbing his role and now today he is focusing on proving/claiming it.

In a vacuum, when it comes to vote manipulation, I think Double-voters tend to be Town. However, vote-stealers feel far more likely to be Scum, potentially as a balance mechanism. And assuming kraska77 is telling the truth about being a 'backup politician', her role could be a sort of reward mechanism for nailing the opposing team's Politician.

Perhaps most importantly, I completely fail to see why he would think another player having the ability to steal players' votes would automatically make them Town from his perspective... if I were Town and had that ability, I would assume if somebody

else

had that ability they would have to be

scum

. Except even

that

does not make sense: what would happen if two Politicians tried to steal the same vote? What if one Politician stole the vote of the

second

Politician? Not to mention the logistical nightmare this puts on the moderator to keep track of multiple players with stolen votes simultaneously. The whole thought-process Bulbazak apparently had ("SleepyKrew mentioned wanting bribes -- he must have the same role as me, so he must be Town!") does not make sense to me.

3.)

I believe Katsuki's claim. The camn death already makes Katsuki more likely to be Town (why kill the person who is sheeping you?) and coming straight out with a guilty on Bulbazak on Day Two after a scumlynch on Day One makes no sense as scum. After all, Bulbazak

already

had a fairly large wagon on Day One, so faking a guilty result would presumably not even be necessary to start up a wagon again on Day Two. I guess it could still be a bluff (and I initially thought it was likely to be), but it does not feel like it.

4.)

Part of the reason that I decided to reveal it is that I'm not a very good balance reviewer, so having that feedback from those of the people here who are (e.g., you and petroleumjelly) would help. I'll go into the negative repercussions in more detail once I clear it with mykonian, since the wording was a bit specific.

I would definitely need to know exactly how the Leader works in order to make a determination on balance. And even then it might only really make sense once the full set-up is revealed.

But let's assume your interpretation is correct -- namely, that the Leader can attempt to execute somebody congruently with the lynch, but that an incorrect choice results in the Leader being killed instead. That would effectively be adding a Kingmaker element to the game except all Townspeople turn into a Hero (of the People) upon execution.

If that is correct, we have huge advantages to work with:

->

a.)

Putting scum in the spot of Leader sounds good for

multiple

reasons. Their hands will be tied during the execution (either they execute a buddy, or kill themselves executing Town, or sign their own delayed death warrant by abstaining),

and

they will be unable to perform night actions. Note that this last bit is

particularly

effectively near endgame. If we ever reach a point where there is one scum remaining, if they are King they cannot nightkill (or execute without killing themself). And if they are not King, then we get

two

shots at killing them every Day (one lynch and one execution). Because the endgame implications are

incredibly

Town-favored, that would require some

serious

beef to balance.

->

b.)

Putting Town in the spot of Leader

also

sounds good for

multiple

reasons. First, that gives us two definitely directed Town "lynches" every Day; we get more say over who dies. In a 15-player game, a Town can usually only direct 7 deaths maximum without interference. But if we lynch/execute every Day, we could have been netting up to 10 deaths maximum without interference. That's crazy-strong. And second, a "failed" execution could effectively confirm a Townsperson (i.e., the person we failed to execute), which the scum would as a result be

forced

to eventually nightkill or else suffer the wrath of quickly process-of-eliminating themselves.

It might be safe to assume that the (

unclarified

) Leader rules have some loopholes or exceptions that scum can exploit (even if only once), or that it does not work exactly like Equinox is inferring. As a note, mykonian

has

recently been on the record saying that games should be more Town-sided, so this game could in-part be an experiment to give us a powerful tool to work with, assuming we actually use it correctly. In which case just

using

the Leader is probably powerful enough.

5.)

Mod

, could you at least explain these "Soldier" roles?

6.)

Vote: Bulbazak

If Katsuki is elected Leader I will move my vote somewhere else. If not, Bulbazak is my preferred lynch.

~

7.)

As an update, I will be moving to new house tomorrow. I probably will not be able to post for a few days, and we are set to get internet hooked up Tuesday or so. I might try to sneak on for a post tomorrow tonight or tomorrow if I can manage it, but I can't promise it.

[petroleumjelly]

Back from V/LA.

Unvote: Bulbazak

Vote: hiplop

1.)

Not liking hiplop's posts on the whole for three main reasons.

->

a.)

First, I am not really feeling hiplop's attempts at potentially directing scumhunting to a somewhat arbitrary group of players:

I think scum would have pushed equinox leader? Easy place to hide.

idk but he [Killthestory] was definitely bussed

->

b.)

Second, hiplop reacted negatively to votes on Killthestory. After I placed an initial vote he threw in a quick "anything else to say?" as if to cast doubt on my vote. As the wagon started to gain momentum, he tossed in "I think KTS is town" without explanation or alternative. And then there was his odd vote on UpTooLate, who was the most vocal player (besides Equinox, who could not be lynched) who was voting for and pressuring Killthestory.

->

c.)

Third, despite seemingly having a Townread on Killthestory, hiplop voted for Killthestory "for Kats" at about the time the wagon started to seem inevitable. And yet at the start of Day Two, when DeathRowKitty asked for an explanation on why Killthestory was getting votes, hiplop quipped "idk but he was definitely bussed." Seeing as hiplop helped lynch Killthestory, this comment both seems disingenuous and potentially tongue-in-cheek (i.e., "he was definitely bussed because I bussed him, teehee").

2.)

Bulbazak's Post #397 is

really

quite bad, and strikes me as desperate. To distill:

->

a.)

First, Bulbazak compares this game to another game where Katsuki was effectively a Townie but claimed "Odd-Night Daycop" with results, one of which included a Day Three "guilty" on Bulbazak. And yet in this game because Katsuki is caught in a "100% lie," Katsuki must be scum (or else there is a "slim" possibility of Katsuki being Town).

->

b.)

Second, Bulbazak complains that

other

players should have to dissect Katsuki's claim for him.

->

c.)

Third, Bulbazak tries to undermine Katsuki's claim by focusing on the whole "special powers if Day One ends before page 12." This looks like a strawman to me. Given that Katsuki had about 39 posts before that 'claim,' I do not think anybody could seriously think Katsuki would get powers by suddenly claiming on page 10 that he would get powers if Day One ended quickly enough.

->

d.)

In that same vein, Bulbazak argues that if Katsuki was telling the truth (about getting special powers), why wasn't Katsuki nightkilled?:

If Katsuki made such a big deal about getting a super special ability from lynching someone within 12 pages, why didn't scum kill him? I mean, come on, the only possibilities from that being true are investigative or killing role, and that's too great a risk for a scum team. And you know what, let's use our brains for just one freaking minute and realize that would be too great a risk for me as scum too.

Easily the biggest gem of the post, and complete nonsense. Ignoring the fact that this completely relies on a bad premise, this argument also ignores all the things scum consider when deciding a nightkill in an attempt to clear himself. And seeing as camn -- the player who

was

killed -- had literally only pushed Bulbazak and Killthestory on Day One

and

was willing to sheep Katsuki, this quote looks even more ridiculous.

->

e.)

In conjunction with Post #427, Bulbazak then tries to undermine my arguments against him by arguing against a point I never made (as UpTooLate has already detailed in Post #430).

->

f.)

And then he rounds it off with a vote for UpTooLate, the "obvious" scum. Yet as far as I can tell, the bulk of Bulbazak's "case" on UpTooLate is the following page 1 comment:

Idk why you all want to lynch Bulbazak.

It looks to me like Bulbazak is trying to ride his dead horse as long as he can. He does not seem to have a real case on UpTooLate beyond "blending in" (?), but he is sticking to his guns because he does not have somewhere else to go.

3.)

Equinox, when were you told the powers of being the Leader after being elected?

4.)

Equinox, in your latest post you mentioned the possibility of angering the "guard" specifically. Do you mean like the two dead guards we currently have? Why have you not mentioned this previously?

5.)

UpTooLate, what do you think of implosion?

[petroleumjelly]

4.) Equinox, in your latest post you mentioned the possibility of angering the "guard" specifically. Do you mean like the two dead guards we currently have? Why have you not mentioned this previously?

Eh, retract this question. Killthestory and camn were Soldiers, not "Guards." Thought I was on to something. /sigh

[petroleumjelly]

I have an idea.

How about people start voting for people they want to lynch? Or at least would be comfortable having executed? By my count there are still six players who have not put down a vote yet. Votes help to give direction.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Equinox, do you agree with this:

OK FIRST THINGS FIRST

LEADERSHIP CHANGES SHOULD NOT BE MADE LIGHTLY AT ALL

...

ACTUALY I TAKE THAT BACK

LEADERSHIP CHANGES SHOULD NOT BE MADE AT ALL UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

2.)

Equinox, what do you think of hiplop?

3.)

Not interested in the SnarkySnowman v Bulbazak back-and-forth, though happy to see SnarkySnowman posting.

As a note, I think we were better off getting the Leader votes over and done with on Day One. I think discussing Leaders > Lynching is likely to be distracting more than illuminating on alignment. I think we were fortunate to elect a Leader so quickly.

4.)

DeathRowKitty, who is scum?

5.)

pitoli, between hiplop and implosion, who is scummier?

~

6.)

I would rather not bother, but in response to Bulbazak's Post #549:

->

a.)

You spent a good deal of your posts on Day One for the sole purpose of crumbing your role and night action. You had a sudden switch on SleepyKrew because SleepyKrew talked about "bribes." During the course of a few posts, you managed to toss in:

Because I saw her [SleepyKrew]

at the convention.

P-edit:

I'm a bad vote for the same reason SK is a bad vote.

I'm disappointed that she hasn't put 2 and 2 together yet.

DRK, stop being stupid.

SK, I need you to use your brain and realize what I'm telling you. Then I need you to

get your political butt off me.

I'm not sure that's going to happen or if I feel good about a lynch taking place in that short amount of time. How beneficial is this ability? Is it good enough to risk a shortened day phase?

Is it good enough for you to lose your vote tomorrow?

So let's recap. You change your mind from thinking SleepyKrew is Scum to Town in a very public and obvious manner (i.e., "I think I know what his role his!"). You follow this up by trying to intimidate players away from voting you because you have a power role -- and SleepyKrew does, too! And then at the end of the day, you literally bargained with Katsuki so that you could justify stealing their vote.

First, as I have already discussed, jumping to the conclusion that SleepyKrew is Town if he has the same role as you does not make sense. Second, trying to get players to stop voting for you because you are a "power role" is bad

particularly when

you do not have a role I would ever want to protect. And third, you helped end Day One in such a way that helped you prove your ability. And then at the start of Day Two you basically gloat about stealing Katsuki's vote:

What's up Kats?

Are you ticked off about the vote? Seriously. Get over it.

None

of this looks Town. What it looks like is you noticed you had a "provable" ability and you set out to prove it.

->

b.)

I think you are scummy

independent

of Katsuki's guilty claim on you. Katsuki's guilty claim just gives me less reason to question your alignment. As I have already discussed, Katsuki-scum does

not

make much sense given the circumstances.

->

c.)

Perhaps the biggest absurdity in your most recent posting is that you think we should be questioning Katsuki's guilty claim on you to a higher degree. And yet on Day One, when Katsuki claimed:

We have two more pages to achieve a lynch. My ability only works tonight if we enter N1 before the end of the 12th page.

You

were willing to end Day One on the condition of stealing Katsuki's vote based on a highly tenuous claim.

You did not question the fact that this post came

directly after

I complained about the game having too many pages, which helps put the 'claim' into context. You did not question the fact that Katsuki had posted about 40 times before making the claim -- something a player who wanted Day One to end quickly

would not do

. And you did not question the absurdity of such a role existing. But now that Katsuki has claimed a guilty on

you

, you suddenly allege that we are not treating the guilty result on the vote-stealing role with enough skepticism.

->

d.)

I am absolutely not going to read all of your scum games to look for a situation where you, as scum, decided to kill somebody who suspected you over somebody you thought was a power role. The fact that you would even suggest I should take on such a task is absurd.

Even assuming you fully believed that Katsuki was

actually

going to get some special ability for ending Day One quickly, there are multiple issues (beyond the "every game is different" generalization), such as: did you think

camn

was a power role? Did you think Katsuki might be

protected

? Could you

roleblock

Katsuki? And perhaps most importantly, what did your

partners

think about who to kill?

But if you want me to theorize why you did not specifically kill Katsuki on Night One (as opposed to

all of the other options

you had), I can find an answer in your own posts. You literally crumbed at the end of the Day One that you were going to steal Katsuki's vote. And if Katsuki was nightkilled Night One, you would be unable to prove it.

[petroleumjelly]

Requesting more votes on hiplop.

[petroleumjelly]

Requesting more votes on hiplop.

come at me.

Why am I scum?

I explained why I am voting for you in Post #475. And now I am asking for more votes on you because you have promised more content for approximately a week without delivering.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

so has UTL

do you think lurkers = scum?

does my being inactive crosssite change anything to you y/n

No, I do not think lurkers are necessarily scum. But potential lurkers

are

good places to pressure, as evidenced by Day One.

As it stands, I have a Townread on UpTooLate while I have a Scumread on you. So trying to defend yourself with "UpTooLate isn't posting either!" is not helping. Additionally, it looks like all of UpTooLate's posting outside of this game for the last week or so have been solely for moderating duties (i.e., vote counts) with literally no posts since the Thursday prod. So while her lack of posting looks life-related, your lack of posting looks game-avoidance-related:

Your claim of being inactive crosssite might be persuasive if it was actually true, but it does not appear to be true. You returned from Limited Access on Saturday, August 27. On Sunday, you posted elsewhere 18 times. Monday, 9 times. Tuesday, 12 times. And Wednesday (the night you were going to "100% commit to blowing off other plans to fuck scum"), 21 times. Starting Thursday your sitewide activity did dip, but that does not excuse all the days that came before where you promised content.

2.)

I am not going to continue arguing the same points with Bulbazak. It seems more distracting (and largely ignored) than anything else. The role by itself sounds like a scum role, Bulbazak's actions to use and prove his ability strike me as scummy,

and

there is a claimed guilty result on the slot. For Day Two after we already lynched scum on Day One, that is

more

than enough for me, and more than I would normally to expect to go off of.

3.)

That said:

Did you at least learn something from it? I was trying to engage Snarky so it would be easier to read him. I would expect something more concrete from you than just "Bored!".

I had a slight Townread on SnarkySnowman based on his Post #566 (his apparent belief of all the various 'claims' on Day One notwithstanding), and he actually moved beeboy (now Cogito Ergo Scum) up on my scumdar as I think he had a good point about how that slot seems to have been actively lurking.

But no, your additional dialogue with him was not very illuminating, since the gist of it was "why did you namedrop PJ" followed by a back-and-forth re-justifying your early-game play. You effectively made the conversation about defending yourself. The fact that you ended that conversation by saying SnarkySnowman is "probably Town" but you were still "divided" if he should be policy-lynched just makes you look worse from the exchange.

4.)

DeathRowKitty, who is scum?

5.)

Nahdia, could you explain your reads on UpTooLate and kraska77 (now pitoli)? I very much disagree with them.

6.)

Katsuki, what are your thoughts on hiplop?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Okay. I am frustrated with all of these replacements. The moderator

specifically

asked players to treat this game like a commitment in sign-ups. I (at least) have a hard time reading and reconciling replacements, so this is only getting more difficult.

I

do not

understand the apparent lack of interest in this game, either. We lynched scum Day One -- and quickly, as opposed to a long, drawn-out lynch that breeds disinterest. Day Two started off with a guilty result, a stolen vote, and a lively discussion leading to a shift in the Leader. We aren't even sure what the Leader does yet. The Mod is posting fairly regular vote counts and timely prods. By all accounts there is enough going on in this game to keep players engaged.

I am going to (re)-propose that players actually

vote

. If you think this game needs life,

give it some life

. You can't just wait around for other people to do everything.

2.)

DrippingGoofball, your player list in Post #688 is missing myself and Cogito Ergo Sum. Where would you put us on your list?

3.)

DrippingGoofball, why are pitoli (kraska77) and lalaladucks scummy?

4.)

Honestly if you think im avoiding the game and am not just busy, that is pre low? Im essentually a camp counselor this week

Yes, I

do

think you are avoiding this game. You

have

been posting on the site, as I have already illustrated. And your posts here a week ago were:

promise i will get active tomororw and save this games activity

watch out scum butts

Grrr I'm gonna get into this game asap i promise

Okay. I am committing 100% to blowing off plans tonight to fuck up scum tonight.

You probably are busy outside of this game; I don't doubt it. So is everybody else, I expect. But you have specifically promised to post in this game -- to the point of "committing 100% to blowing off other plans" -- and you have failed to do so.

Here's where you can start. Address my Post #475. Then tell us who

you

think is scum. Is there some player you think is being overly ignored? Do you think somebody is playing weird? Any revelations about the 'squirrel crew'? Just do

something

.

Please.

It's not a game if you don't bother to play, and I am not keen on continually trying to figure you out based on one-liners and promises to post.

5.)

SnarkySnowman, can you elaborate on implosion? You have recently played together and it does not seem like there is much love lost between the two of you. You also (incorrectly) thought he was scum last game, and you seem to think he is potentially scum this game. Do you think there is something about his playstyle that makes you think he is scum, or is there something

more

this game that makes you have that read?

6.)

DeathRowKitty, I have asked you point-blank who is scum twice (because your posts really give no clue who you think is scum as of Day Two), and you have not even acknowledged me.

Please

take the time to read the game and post.

7.)

UpTooLate, based on your V/LA you should be returning soon. What do you think about SnarkySnowman now? What do you think of the replacements we've had while you were away?

8.)

Cogito Ergo Sum, please detail why you think Katsuki's guilty result is a fake claim. I have read over the events

multiple

times now and I still do not believe it is a fake claim.

Katsuki-scum does not make sense. I do not think Katsuki would kill camn Night One. Scum are far less likely to try a guilty-claim gambit on Day Two if a partner was just lynched on Day One. And even if scum were going to try a fake-guilty in that situation, claiming it on a player who was already bandwagoned and a suspect from Day One makes even less sense.

So the realistic question is whether Katsuki is Town fake-claiming a guilty. I understand that Katsuki apparently has a habit of 'fake-claiming' guilty results as Town. Fine. But this looks legitimate:

->

a.)

First, Katsuki made (what I think to be) an obviously fake claim at the end of Day One. If I had to guess, it was done along the lines of "I have a power role, so I might as well claim a power so ridiculous that scum will write me off not being a threat on Night One."
->

b.)

Second, Katsuki distanced himself from his vote on Killthestory, which would give scum less of an incentive to gun for Katsuki on Night One (as opposed to if Katsuki was leading the charge). I see this another attempt to subtly sway scum into thinking Katsuki was not a threat on Night One.
->

c.)

Third, I would completely think that if Katsuki had an investigative role that he would have investigated either Bulbazak or kraska77 on Night One.
->

d.)

Fourh, even after being elected Leader (i.e., in a position where we cannot lynch Katsuki), Katsuki has not backed down as having a guilty result on Bulbazak. And all of Katsuki's Day Two posts are consistent with a guilty reult on Bulbazak.

Even the boy who cried wolf eventually sees the wolf. And this is looking like the situation where Katsuki legitimately has a guilty result. I do not find the "lying about receiving the vote stealing PM" persuasive in the least. Yes it was

dumb

, but it doesn't make the guilty result less valid. The post that gives me the most doubt is indeed the obviously tongue-in-cheek:

I would never fake a guilty result hiplop. Pls don't fake guilty kids

But it reads as just that. Tongue-in-cheek. The fact is, Katsuki has had ample opportunity to back away from the claim if it is fake given that he has been elected Leader, and he has not done so. As you argued yourself, if he is faking he has probably already gotten what he wanted (i.e., to be Leader). So why keep up the charade?

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: hiplop

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Largely changing votes so that hiplop is not left at L-1, but (besides Bulbazak) this looks like the best place for my vote in the meantime. I would still prefer a hiplop lynch currently.

1.)

DrippingGoofball, you pointedly failed to answer my second question to you in Post #714. Why are pitoli (kraska77) and lalaladucks scummy?

2.)

DrippingGoofball, we just had about three replacements in a row who are all reading the game and providing fresh viewpoints. Why would you then feel the need to vote one of your Townreads for the sake of "movement" when you have three scumreads to choose from? For somebody who has apparently not even read Day Two yet, voting for the sake of "movement" seems even more manufactured.

3.)

DrippingGoofball, in Post #685 you imply that lalaladucks spread votes around in order to "tag" a partner or two. But in Post #688 you literally list every single player lalaladucks voted for in that post as your Townreads. Does that change your impression of lalaladucks' post?

4.)

Serious questions: DrippingGoofball, do you feel like you are still having memory issues? Do you feel like that is affecting your play in this game to any extent? Are you okay to be playing mafia right now?

My apologies if these questions are a bit too personal or are not worded sensitively. And I am not trying to imply that I personally want you to replace out. But I do honestly worry whether this is a game you should be playing.

5.)

hiplop, why is lalaladucks scum? Do you have reasons beyond Errantparabola's? The only indicator I can find in your posts is Post #441, which is not helpful.

6.)

hiplop, can you please explain the Soldier role?

7.)

Errantparabola, in Post #738 you indicate that the reasons to vote hiplop are "not good." But after putting hiplop back at L-1 you suggest that hiplop should claim or "present a godly defense." Why would hiplop need to have a "godly" defense if you don't think the case on him is very good?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Are you calling laladucks town?

No. lalaladucks is actually pretty much completely null for me. He does not seem Townish or scummish. He just has posts.

2.)

Unvote: hiplop

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Largely changing votes so that hiplop is not left at L-1, but (besides Bulbazak) this looks like the best place for my vote in the meantime. I would still prefer a hiplop lynch currently.

Your fake case is pretty rich considering the above ^^^^^

You are doing exactly what you are complaining I am doing LOL

I voted you because I did not want hiplop to remain close to being lynched but I wanted my vote to be on somebody. I decided you were a good place to pressure in the meantime given that I already had some questions for you. Additionally, you replaced SleepyKrew whose play I did not like (especially given that he caused kraska77, one of my Townreads, to replace out) and Nahdia, who did pretty much nothing besides cast suspicion on two of my Townreads (UpTooLate and kraska77/pitoli) without ever answering why.

You, however, voted one of your Townreads for the sake of "movement." I would say these are quite different.

3.)

2.)

DrippingGoofball, we just had about three replacements in a row who are all reading the game and providing fresh viewpoints. Why would you then feel the need to vote one of your Townreads for the sake of "movement" when you have three scumreads to choose from? For somebody who has apparently not even read Day Two yet, voting for the sake of "movement" seems even more manufactured.

I would ask if you've played with DGB before, but further down, it's quite evident that you have. DGB wanting to get the game moving is not out of the ordinary. Why then do you try to paint it like it is?

DrippingGoofball and I have played together for many years.

What kind of "painting" did I do? I am trying to figure out why she would vote one of her Townreads and whether she is making up reasons to do it. It does not make sense to me that a replacement who is still reading the game would feel compelled to vote one of their Townreads.

4.)

Serious questions: DrippingGoofball, do you feel like you are still having memory issues? Do you feel like that is affecting your play in this game to any extent? Are you okay to be playing mafia right now?

My apologies if these questions are a bit too personal or are not worded sensitively. And I am not trying to imply that I personally want you to replace out. But I do honestly worry whether this is a game you should be playing.

This is dirty pool.

No, it's not.

For starters, I just finished a game (Mini #1805) with DrippingGoofball where this was an issue. She was a Vigilante who honestly believed she had nightkilled a player she did not kill because she forgot. She claimed the wrong kill on Day Three which led her to being lynched. After the lynch -- because a Vigilante has no reason to lie about who they kill -- her claim caused the Town to think there was a Serial Killer in the game which helped lead to the final mislynch.

In the Dead Thread and Post-Game she discussed her memory and health and how embarrassed she was for making these types of mistakes across multiple games. Everybody wished her well. Because in the end, Mafia is ultimately just a game played by people. Given her play in that game and the discussion of her memory and health, I legitimately worry whether she should be playing mafia games right now.

That said, I

am

also trying to judge if her play in this game may to some extent be affected by her memory. This could change my view on how I read some of her posting. I

already

have a hard time judging her play normally. I realize this is a sensitive topic, which is why I tried to broach it politely and respectfully.

[petroleumjelly]

TOWN
DGB
UpTooLate my top town read
Katsuki
Hiplop
Equinox (see post #126)
DeathRowKitty (mason?)

UpTooLate was literally your "top town read."

Why

are you voting for her? Your votes in this game are completely at odds with your words.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

That being said, do you think that her reads have not had time to change since she replaced in? You just seem to be more hung up with words over actions and intentions.

Players go back on their Townreads all the time. And when they do, it is pretty standard to ask them why.

2.)

Unvote: beeboy

Vote: Killthestory

Also, looking back, I can't find a reason for this vote. Why did you vote KTS again?

Honestly, you probably didn't catch the reason because you are so focused on trying to catch things while reading posts in isolation instead of reading the game cohesively.

I initially voted for Killthestory after Equinox mentioned in Post #97 that he had been in site chat but had not posted in this game. At that time, Killthestory was the only player who had not posted in the game. I also used the "Search user's posts" function and confirmed that he was posting on the site.

3.)

I also hope that PJ will grace us with his presence before I get to my analysis. His absence is starting to bother me.

I last posted yesterday morning. What about that bothers you?

And why are tossing in negatively connotative language like "grace us with his presence" when describing me? I'm not royalty.

4.)

DeathRowKitty,

i feel like i want to synch up with utl here like not in that way but like with reads or something, y'know?

If you want to synch up with her, why have you made no actual attempts to do it? It looks like you're hardly trying to do anything. I think I keep wanting to like you because of your avatar, but your posts have been severely lacking. At the very least you should vote.

5.)

pitoli, the same goes for you. You started off the game strong as a replacement, but you have since completely fallen off. I have a lingering Townread from your predecessor (kraska77), but you're really going to have to post. That includes laying down a vote.

6.)

DrippingGoofball, can you explain your vote on lalaladucks?

[petroleumjelly]

Don't have much time, but a few general notes on Bulbazak's analysis:

1.)

You focus on what you think are the two worst votes on the Killthestory wagon, but you miss these three:

VOTE: kts

for kats

Deal.

Unvote
Vote Killthestory

I still expect intent and time for a claim.

VOTE: KTS for L-1

I like this wagon.

hiplop went from calling Killthestory Town, trying to start up an UpTooLate wagon, to voting Killthestory "for Kats(uki)." If you think Katsuki's vote is suspect for "trusting in PJ," it's odd you are not pinged by hiplop's voting based on Katsuki's vote (who hid behind

my

vote).

You similarly went from the strange UpTooLate wagon to voting for Killthestory for no good reason, save for making a "deal" with Katsuki to steal his vote on Night One. Granted, you're unlikely to call out your own bad vote.

And of course, SnarkySnowman did pretty much nothing Day One save for throwing down a L-1 vote on Killthestory.

2.)

You argue UpTooLate voted for Killthestory to get his attention as a way to get him to play the game. But as the Mod indicated:

Role PM's are out! As in any myko game, don't bother confirming, day one starts now! People with a private topic will be able to get to know each other in the first three days.

Day One took less than three days, so scum had Daytalk with each other the entire time. I assume if they wanted to communicate with each other (such as, "play the game"), they could have just done so in the private topic.

3.)

You argue that Killthestory must have been "hard-bussed" but then seem to criticize me for "fading into the background." So which is it?

4.)

And as for "fading into the background," you (again) seem to ignore my schedule and how often I can realistically post. After Monday evening (when I made my post asking Killthestory about his Mafia Discussion thread), I never had another opportunity to post because Killthestory was lynched while I was still at work on Tuesday.

~

UpTooLate is

my

highest Townread. What exactly is your case in calling her scum? Because even after your analysis, I'm not seeing much of a reason. I am very much against your attempt at instigating a wagon on her a day before the deadline.

[petroleumjelly]

Quick post, about to head out for errands. Likely will not be able to post again today.

1.)

I still think Katsuki is Town and hence we should probably just have him remain as Leader (especially if UpTooLate's theory is correct). I just don't think his Day Two play (in conjunction with camn kill) makes sense as scum. But still:

2.)

Mod

: Can we get confirmation that Bulbazak was 'executed'? I have to think players would know the difference between 'nightkilled' and 'executed'. Is it possible there can be more than one execution target?

3.)

I apparently lost my vote last night. For now I am mostly confused about that. I would sort of expect Bulbazak to try steal my vote as a last ditch effort, but since he died I would have thought I would keep my vote in the end. Either that's not how it works or somebody else stole my vote.

4.)

I will need to reread the game. Four flips is a lot.

5.)

Unsurprisingly unimpressed with DrippingGoofball's scumputer. Basically, players who hardly ever voted are "Town" and players who utilize their votes are more likely to be "Scum." I am also interested to know whether DrippingGoofball kept in mind that Katsuki's Day Two voting was actually Bulbazak's Day Two voting.

[petroleumjelly]

Leader: UpTooLate

Vote: DeathRowKitty

Might as well toss these out, if only to check on the vote stealer.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Katsuki, can you confirm that you did not attempt to execute ErrantParabola (Equinox)?

2.)

Katsuki, could you please calmly explain your "guilty" result on Bulbazak?

3.)

UpTooLate,

I am a town soldier and was ordered to kill both Bulbazak and EP (which is why earlier I said I think if we elect another leader we'll have another execution target. Kats said it would be wise not to switch leaders too often, and I'd think it was a scummy thing to say if there wasn't an extra target last night.) I had a choice, I could kill them or disobey the leader. I was left with the impression that bad things would happen if I disobeyed the leader, and quite frankly thought there was a good chance that Bulb was scum and wanted to test Kats' guilty, and so I pulled the trigger.

Here, you make it sound like Bulbazak and ErrantParabola (Equinox) were a sort of "package deal" where you either choose if they both live or they both die. But immediately afterwards:

I got sent 2 requests. Yes. He wouldn't verify they were both from the leader, but in conjunction with what kats said about not wanting to change leaders often it makes sense.

You make it sound like there were two separate requests, either of which could be obeyed or disobeyed. While you have explained why you "pulled the trigger" on Bulbazak, you have not explained why you "pulled the trigger" on ErrantParabola (Equinox).

Could you clear this up?

4.)

I agree that SnarkySnowman should claim sooner rather than later. I also agree with mass-claim. It feels like there have been enough partial claims in this game that scum probably have a good idea of the set-up, so we might as well get on the same level.

5.)

I would be especially leery of putting any elections or lynches within L-1 reach without good reason. Given that my vote has been stolen, we should assume it might be being held in reserve for the purposes of a surprise hammer. I have some more thoughts on this, but I will hold off until after mass-claim.

6.)

Going with the odds, I think implosion should save his Night One result until after mass-claim. It is possible he may be able to catch somebody in a contradiction.

[petroleumjelly]

7.)

Katsuki, have you been notified about any negative effects for ordering an execution on a Townsperson?

[petroleumjelly]

8.)

I am also confused about the timing of the executions/kills. Equinox was very adamant that executions were effective at the end of the Day:

The leader has the power to execute any player in the game, effective at the end of the Day. There is a condition that mykonian coded in flavor. Having thought about this, it's better if I outline it so that an actual leadership choice can be made. That condition is that executing the wrong person can lead to disfavor among a group that I can safely assume are town.

So alternate Kingmaker. Cool. Does the execution end the day?

No, it takes effect at the end of the Day.

Quick thought: does your choice take effect at the end of the day, or the execution itself? Like, will it resolve over night or do we get 2 flips at the end of the day?

Both. I can change my choice of execution as many times as needed, and the execution occurs with the end-of-Day lynch.

ErrantParabola did not really talk about the timing of executions, but he did not contradict Equinox about it. Katsuki also makes it clear he thought executions occurred alongside the lynch:

@Spyspy: I had no knowledge about soldiers or anyone else carrying out the kill. I thought executions would occur at the end of the day, hence why I wanted out when bulb didn't die.

It is definitely odd, then, that the execution/executions occured at Night. Worse, this is obscuring who was actually executed as opposed to who was actually nightkilled:

Dead:

Killthestory, the

mafia soldier

was lynched day 1
Camn, the

town soldier

was killed night 1
Hiplop, the

town soldier

was lynched day 2
Lalaladucks, the

town soldier

was killed night 2
Bulbazak, the

town politician

was killed night 2
Errantparabola

who replaced Equinox

, the

town roleblocker

was killed night 2

The city collectively holds it's breath. Are they on the brink of civil war, is their leader losing control?

Lalaladucks, the

town soldier

,
Bulbazak, the

town politician

and
Errantparabola, the

town roleblocker

were killed night 2

The whole situation here seems off. I

definitely

want a mass-claim.

[petroleumjelly]

Still around. I may claim out-of-order just to expedite things.

[petroleumjelly]

Vanilla Townie.

I believe that leaves Katsuki and DeathRowKitty.

[petroleumjelly]

Short post. Probably won't be able post again until Sunday.

1.)

Cogito Ergo Sum, were you asked to perform any executions over the course of the game (including Night One)? I will have follow-up questions.

2.)

Katsuki, please answer my questions from earlier, namely:

->

a.)

Please calmly explain the Bulbazak "guilty"; and
->

b.)

Were you told of any negative repercussions for ordering executions on Townspeople?

3.)

I am confused (flavorwise) why SnarkytheSnowman is a "Homicide Detective" who apparently only gets a result if they Watch somebody who dies. I have seen a role similar to that (FBI Investigator), but they usually target a player who is dead. How can you investigate a homicide before you know there is a homicide? The claim itself -- assuming he knew Katsuki ordered the kill on ErrantParabola -- also circumvents being contradicted in case anybody else targeted ErrantParabola.

The power existing in some capacity seems believable, at least. I will need to sit down and look at all the claims in more scrutiny before making a decision, I think. There's

technically

a chance that both implosion and SnarkytheSnowman are Town, so I want to stay away from the "one has to be scum" mentality. They don't seem like scum together (that would be an elaborate and seemingly unnecessary bus?) at least. Will keep in mind while rereading.

4.)

I'm too tired to think of the implications, but I find it interesting that there is seemingly no protective role, but there was a Roleblocker role. We also seem to have semi-killing roles (Soldiers) that I still do not quite understand. Lots of additional kills without many protective roles suggests mykonian was expecting this to be a death-heavy game.

I am vaguely wondering if the scum also perform "executions" somehow? But I'm not sure how much this train of thought is being influenced by SnarkytheSnowman's wording of his claim. It is perhaps the case that an "execution" would get around a protection, hence the lack of protective roles?

5.)

I mentioned it before, but it is probably safe to assume that Scum have some sort of ability to screw with executions, perhaps even as a one-shot thing. The existence of the Leader position is powerful, so we should probably refrain from making plans or decisions that completely rely on everything going as we think it will go. Given the lack of firm answers from mykonian concerning both Soldiers, the Leader, and nightkills v executions, I assume he is refraining from a solid answer due to there being potential exceptions to any 'rule' he might give. Nobody can be claim foul afterwards if they weren't told anything concrete to begin with.

6.)

implosion should probably claim his Night One result now.

[petroleumjelly]

I'll separate questions from answers/comments for ease.

1.)

Cogito Ergo Sum:

->

a.)

Why did you agree to both executions?
->

b.)

Did it seem like you had the option to execute one player but not the other? You in particular seemed to think Bulbazak was Town while ErrantParabola (Equinox) was scum, which is flip-flopped with UpTooLate.
->

c.)

Why did you not verify UpTooLate's claim? You seemed to act more confused than anything, despite now claiming to have had information.

2.)

Cogito Ergo Sum, do you have any insights on what negative repercussions would result if you "disobeyed" the Leader's orders for execution?

3.)

Katsuki,

exactly when

did you order the execution of ErrantParabola (Equinox)? I will likely have follow up questions for this.

4.)

Katsuki, this is the third time I have asked: please calmly explain the Bulbazak "guilty."

I have been biting my tongue, but I

hate

Townspeople who lie about their roles or results. It is selfish. It is harmful to the game. It loses games that don't need to be lost. It gives scum outs they shouldn't have. Right now, I still think you are probably and

frustratingly

Town. I have a general idea (especially given your end-of-Day-Two posting) about why, if you are Town, you did what you did. But I would very much appreciate a more calm version of your motivations. I don't have to like what you did, but I would least like to understand it.

5.)

SnarkytheSnowman, can you (attempt to) confirm with the Mod whether you would see Scum performing a

normal

(traditional) nightkill?

It really does not make much sense if you can only see players who the Leader "executes." It is (presumably?) always just going to point to the Leader. And the Leader is seemingly not incentivized to lie about their targets since it appears all the Soldiers are

already

told who the Leader attempted to execute. Either UpTooLate or Cogito Ergo Sum apparently could have told us everything you claimed, except they didn't also have to "watch" the exact right person at Night to get that information.

That said

, if your role is real, that definitely suggests Scum might have a way to maybe "redirect" an Execution (or something), which might count as an "order" (so you could possibly "absolve" a Leader who seems to have gone back on their word while also catching the scum that redirected -- which, because that would be such a huge swing, would require your role to chance upon a very narrow circumstance, hence the narrow wording of your role).

On the surface your role seems so ridiculous, and yet I can totally see why a Moderator might include exactly that kind of role for the Town. And how would a "Homicide Detective" even know who "ordered" a kill but not the player/s ("Soldier/s"?) who actually

performed

the kill? Ugh.

6.)

SnarkytheSnowman, additionally, would you be able to see a player who ordered the Execution on a player who

survives

an Execution (because, say, the Soldiers "disobeyed" and did not carry it out)? Or does the player actually have to die?

7.)

DrippingGoofball, I cannot pin down your reads. Please clarify them.

8.)

UpTooLate and Cogito Ergo Sum, do you think Executions would not occur if you "disobeyed" the order? What do you realistically think would happen if you "disobeyed"?

9.)

UpTooLate and Cogito Ergo Sum, what do you think would happen if all of the Soldiers were to die? Would the Leader be unable to perform executions, since they only "order" them but do not personally carry them out?

10.)

implosion, a bit of an odd question, but why didn't you track me on Night Two? I was reading over your Day Two posts and it definitely looked like you were almost going out of your way to mention how "not Town" I looked.

11.)

implosion, please claim your Night One result.

[petroleumjelly]

This Leader mechanic is such a headache. I almost wish we could vote for there to not be a Leader at all.

1.)

farside22,

I changed from voting Bulbazak to voting for hiplop on Day Two because Katsuki was a vote from being elected Leader with a claimed guilty result on Bulbazak. Continuing to vote for Bulbazak would essentially be a waste of my vote. How does that it make "zero sense"?

I later unvoted hiplop and moved to DrippingGoofball for the reasons I stated: I do not like leaving players at L-1 where they can be hammered at any time if I am unsatisfied with the Day ending. Asking "Who the (blank) does this?" is not very believable.

Lots

of players have a tendency to unvote when players get close to being lynched. I had questions for DrippingGoofball and I also had questions for hiplop. Just because hiplop was my best guess doesn't mean I was incapable of changing my mind, especially if he started to actually contribute.

What is scummy about moving my vote around? Are you

seriously

confused why a player might unvote somebody at L-1?

2.)

I could have sworn there was another question for me but now I can't find it. If I did, please repeat it.

3.)

Unsurprisingly, I think scum stole my vote last night; it essentially makes me toothless today and nobody has claimed doing it. I had a theory that it might have been Cogito Ergo Sum, but I honestly have a hard time believing he would claim to be a Soldier if he was not actually a Soldier.

4.)

Largely a note to self, but when I reread I should check to figure out who ErrantParabola (Equinox) most likely roleblocked on Night Two.

5.)

If I could vote I think I would vote SpyreX for Leader at this point. I still think Katsuki is probably Town (even though this seems to be an unpopular opinion...), but SpyreX has definitely jumped to my top Townread. At least before rereading I also lean towards UpTooLate being Town, but I franky doubt we could get her elected since there seems to be so much resistance there.

I am not seeing much resistance to SpyreX in particular, and given that most everybody seems to agree we should change Leaders, I think SpyreX is the best compromise. We are at a point where we

must

compromise.

~

Update:

6.)

Glancing at implosion's Day Two posting I can confirm it is consistent with a "no result" on DeathRowKitty (farside22). His first post on Day Two included:

Alrighty then.

I think I'll take my townlist from earlier and replace Kats with DRK. Although idk yet if Kats is just fucking around but bulbazak is obvtown so.

And there was another indication here consistent with "having more information than usual":

What are your thoughts on beeboy, DeathRowKitty, and SleepyKrew?

beeboy and drk are masons so they're confirmed town

DRK, I sort of believe 290 and I think she's

proobably

town.

"Probably" because a "no result" makes it

more likely

DeathRowKitty (farside22) is Town without guaranteeing it. And (as implosion just mentioned), not targeting anybody Night One is consistent with somebody who did not read the game on Night One (Post #290).

7.)

implosion, can I get an update on what you think about SnarkySnowman after massclaim?

[petroleumjelly]

1.) farside22,

I changed from voting Bulbazak to voting for hiplop on Day Two because Katsuki was a vote from being elected Leader with a claimed guilty result on Bulbazak. Continuing to vote for Bulbazak would essentially be a waste of my vote. How does that it make "zero sense"?

HI pj.
Can I just say I'm sorry to see you are scum this game.
Anyways I'll waste a moment to respond to this.
1) You were scum read bulbs, acting concerned about a player you are scum reading at l-1 is pretty fake as hell.
2) moving to hiplop and still scum reading and moving to Dgb because gasp another player scum scum reading is at l-1. Again reads fake as hell
4) thinking scum would hammer or some player is going to hammer to end of the day should be the least of your concerns WHEN YOU ARE READING THE PLAYER AS SCUM!!!!
Zero fucking sense

I get that you just replaced in, but you might want to read more slowly.

1.)

Yes, I was scumreading Bulbazak. He looked like a done deal on Day Two. And because Katsuki -- the person who had the claimed guilty on him -- was going to be the Leader, it was pretty evident that Bulbazak was going to be the the Execution target. There is no reason to continue voting for a player who is going to be executed anyways.

As a note, Bulbazak was never at L-1 on Day Two.

2.)

Just because hiplop was my best guess for scum (besides Bulbazak) on Day Two does not mean I should have kept my vote on him when he is at L-1.

If you read my posts, it is pretty evident my main goal was to get him to post and respond so that I could get a read on him. I first laid out a little case on him in Post #475. After the short Day One, he was my best guess for Scum and my top Scumread (again, besides Bulbazak) by default. He did not acknowledge my post.

After about a week of waiting for him to live up to his promises of reading the game and scumhunting, I eventually requested more votes on him for the purposes of pressure and hopefully snapping him to attention. He seemed to be avoiding the game, which I noted. I eventually got to the point where I was essentially pleading with him to actually post:

You probably are busy outside of this game; I don't doubt it. So is everybody else, I expect. But you have specifically promised to post in this game -- to the point of "committing 100% to blowing off other plans" -- and you have failed to do so.

Here's where you can start. Address my Post #475. Then tell us who

you

think is scum. Is there some player you think is being overly ignored? Do you think somebody is playing weird? Any revelations about the 'squirrel crew'? Just do

something

.

Please.

It's not a game if you don't bother to play, and I am not keen on continually trying to figure you out based on one-liners and promises to post.

Even after I unvoted him I tried to keep him engaged:

5.)

hiplop, why is lalaladucks scum? Do you have reasons beyond Errantparabola's? The only indicator I can find in your posts is Post #441, which is not helpful.

6.)

hiplop, can you please explain the Soldier role?

Here's what you are failing to get, apparently. Just because hiplop was my best guess for Scum

does not mean

I was convinced he was Scum or that I definitively wanted him lynched.

I

was not

convinced he was Scum, and I

did not

particularly want him lynched at that point despite being my "preferred" lynch. What I

did

want was for him to contribute so I could see if my read on him actually panned out or not. As is pretty evident, my thoughts on him were largely based on a few posts on Day One which

vaguely

made him look tied to Killthestory (switching from a weak protest to busing when things looked bleak), and the fact that I did not like his overly simplified narrowing of suspects (namely, "players who elected Equinox" + "players who lynched Killthestory"). I wasn't going off of much.

Why would you think I should stick hard-to-fast to that vote when he was put at L-1? Saying it makes "zero fucking sense"

makes

no sense.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

DrippingGoofball and farside22, I am far from stalling on electing a Leader. As I have already claimed (and proven), my vote was stolen last night. I also literally just encouraged everybody to compromise to elect a new Leader:

5.)

If I could vote I think I would vote SpyreX for Leader at this point. I still think Katsuki is probably Town (even though this seems to be an unpopular opinion...), but SpyreX has definitely jumped to my top Townread. At least before rereading I also lean towards UpTooLate being Town, but I franky doubt we could get her elected since there seems to be so much resistance there.

I am not seeing much resistance to SpyreX in particular, and given that most everybody seems to agree we should change Leaders, I think SpyreX is the best compromise. We are at a point where we

must

compromise.

But, sure:

Leader: SpyreX

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Pre-post edit: I see farside22 has noticed this now. Still doesn't hurt to prove it again.

2.)

DrippingGoofball:

So you wanted to lynch someone less scummy than your best guess LOL

No, I wanted to pressure somebody who was not as good as my best guess. Placing a vote does not necessarily mean I want that person lynched or that I think they are the scummiest player in the game. This is a simple concept. And when I did change my vote from hiplop to you on Day Two, I did so

while specifically saying

that I would otherwise keep my vote on hiplop if he were not at L-1:

Unvote: hiplop

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Largely changing votes so that hiplop is not left at L-1, but (besides Bulbazak) this looks like the best place for my vote in the meantime. I would still prefer a hiplop lynch currently.

I was never hiding the ball. Please stop acting like you do not understand that votes are not always for lynching. As a rule, I don't like my vote being on nobody unless I have a reason.

3.)

farside22, UpTooLate has been a Townread for me for much of the game. I find that when she posts, she pretty much asks exactly the questions I would want to ask, or gives pushes on players I would also like to push on . I have liked when she has displayed some attitude with players -- it always feels appropriate and natural. (In many ways, she reminds me of MeMe, which might play a little into my Townread). It feels like we are both often on the same wavelength in terms of trying to read other players and making sense of what they say. This has been more of a cumulative effect over the course of the game. She is still a very strong Townread to me.

If anything, my Townread on her has strengthened in light of the mass-claim and with Bulbazak's death.

->

a.)

After Katsuki was elected Leader (on the heels of claiming a guilty result on Bulbazak), pretty much

everybody

stopped arguing with Bulbazak

except

for UpTooLate and myself, even though everybody who elected Katsuki had basically agreed to have Bulbazak executed:

votecounts

For leadership

Katsuki (9): Katsuki, Bulbazak, Equinox, Kraska77, Uptoolate, Hiplop, Beeboy, Snarkysnowman, Sleepykrew

Now that we know Bulbazak was Town, it makes a lot of sense that scum in particular would not even

bother

engaging with Bulbazak. He was a dead man walking. What does Scum have to gain arguing with somebody who is presumably going to be executed anyways?

Just glancing through Bulbazak's posts again, it seems like his reads by Day Two pretty much boiled down to "everybody who directly argues with me is scum" (Katsuki, myself, and UpTooLate). Given the circumstances and his wall-posting, I am fairly certain scum would play it safe and stay a reasonable distance away from Bulbazak.

->

b.)

Second, I think the timing and the way in which UpTooLate claimed her role makes sense from Town. She was clearing up confusion just when it needed to be cleared up.

I

can

see your argument that it is possible SnarkySnowman was trying to telegraph to UpTooLate to claim before he did, since his claim effectively told us nothing new by the time UpTooLate had claimed. I just don't think it actually happened.

[petroleumjelly]

Downtime post from work.

1.)

Thanks for the game, all. Special thanks to the replacements and mykonian. And hey, we kept it under 50 pages. Probably could have been shorter, but Day Two dragged on after the Leader election and the string of replacements.

2.)

As for the set-up, the sheer amount of kills available definitely favors the Town. I

do

think moderators

should

as a rule balance in favor of Towns because set-ups tend to play out more in favor of scum. But this may have crossed the arbitrary line a bit – a Town Leader who (effectively) cannot be removed can completely destroy a scumteam even if the Town is not very accurate. Had the Leader executed Night One (for example), Town would have gotten a seventh (!) kill in three days. And if two of those kills had hit scum (instead of just one), we would have been put into a 5-player endgame with 3 Town v 2 Scum. While that normally means “LyLo,” the presence of a Politician, a Back-Up Politician, and perhaps most importantly, a Roleblocker, means that Town had multiple scenarios where they might have gotten an additional Day even with a miskill.

Granted I was never sure under what conditions the game would actually

end

. For example: was 2 v 2 sufficient, or did we

also

have to be in control of votes? The scum Role PM indicated that we could only win if nothing could prevent it… and having a stolen vote (allowing Town to hit three votes for a lynch) followed by a correct Execution would technically let Town win such a scenario. And so on.

Overall, though, I think given that how the set-up would play out was hazy, mykonian did an okay job of trying to hit a balance. I would have just taken it easy on the above-mentioned roles that are especially difficult for scum to maneuver around in endgame, perhaps by limiting their uses or giving scum at least one way to wiggle.

3.)

I

do not

like the Politician role.

->

a.)

For some players (especially Vanilla Town), the most influential thing they can do in a game is to cast a vote, and casting a vote is the heart of playing mafia. Taking it away from a player feels against the spirit. I particularly do not understand how a vote can be “stolen” when the stealer is dead; the vote should just revert back to normal. (Not that I minded – it allowed me to more ineffectually ‘defend’ Katsuki/UpTooLate/SnarkySnowman and ‘attack’ DrippingGoofball, all while playing ignorant).
->

b.)

With one less vote available, the requirements for Leader/lynching should have been treated as though there were eight players alive. A missing vote

could

have made it impossible for Town to reach a supermajority to change the Leader, as an example. (On Day Three, Town needed six out of eight available votes to change the Leader. Had Bulbazak stolen a Townsperson’s vote and the three scum silently refused to help, a Leader change would have been impossible… except perhaps to elect a scum Leader).

4.)

If anything is taken from this game, I hope it is that lying as Town should be heavily discouraged. Even little white lies can add up. If you want to change the state of a game, you should argue for it – not lie to get it. Townspeople should not have to go through the thought process of “this person lied to everybody – are they still Town?” The only liars in a game should be scum.

[petroleumjelly]

Sorry about the politician, in that case.

Eh, I don't think there's a reason to be sorry. I just don't happen to like the role. I think it demotivates players from posting after their vote is stolen, and so seems anti-activity and therefore pro-scum; not to mention the hidden nature of the stolen vote, which makes the role itself seem further scummy. The design space is there and you shouldn't feel bad at least experimenting with it, but it definitely does not strike me as a role that is particularly pro-Town.