Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

still here. anything else need doing?

BM

[Cream147]

Well, I'm still undecided on raider. I can see him not understanding the case.

What do you mean by needs less kool-aid? And it is shaky, seeing how everything can be called a distraction from one's favored lynch. Plus, you outright claimed he lied. I'm not sure how much stronger you could get from that.

I personally think the case on you is and was very simple from the moment it was proposed.

[armlx]

Cream, do you agree or disagree with said case.

[skitzer]

Vote Count Sixteen of Day Two

(6) Netlava: hasdgfas, Cyberbob, armlx, Sineish, BlakAdder, raider8169
(4) Cass: Netlava, Lowell, Cephrir, Tom Mason
(3) raider8169: Battle Mage, StrangerCoug, EGL
(1) armlx: Skruffs
(1) BlakAdder: Cass
(1) Skruffs: Korts

(9) Not Voting: slanton2, Rich, Cream147, Citizen Karne, Knight of Cydonia, killa seven, Surye, The Only Ryan

With 24 alive, it takes 13 votes to lynch!

Last Post Count Sixteen of Day Two

Key:
Green - posted in last 24 hours
Blue - posted in last 48 hours
Olive - Posted in last 72 hours
Red - Posted more than 72 hours ago, prodded
Dark Red - Requiring Replacement
Dark Blue - Vacation/Limited Access

StrangerCoug

Netlava

armlx

raider8169

Tom Mason

EGL

Citizen Karne

Cyberbob

Battle Mage

Cream147

Sineish

Lowell

Korts

hasdgfas

killa seven

BlakAdder

Cephrir

Surye

Knight of Cydonia

Skruffs

The Only Ryan

Rich

Cass

slanton2

slanton2 may be replaced because of inactivity.
Prodding Skruffs and Knight of Cydonia.

[Knight of Cydonia]

My bad, have been reading, just haven't had time to post much with RL stuff, this slipped to the back of my queue.
I have, however finally caught up, and I have but one thing to say:

Vote: Netlava

Let's put it this way, Net - my sister, who has played Mafia once, in a Drama lesson, looked over my shoulder as I read your posts and the case and said "He looks like Mafia to me." My kid sister, ffs. The case is good.

[Korts]

Bravo. Solid proof, KoC. Not, you know, an obvious attempt at wagoning...

@Korts: Skruffs is a better lynch than Netlava, Cass, or Raider.

a) he made a bullshit analogy; I have previously showed how it's completely flawed and ultimately WIFOM. This itself would be a minor point, if he would just try and prove his point.

b) he has so far refused to reply to my points against the analogy itself, even though I asked him multiple times. Avoidance of the topic gives me incentive to keep my vote on him.

I think Cass is a pretty good lynch; I made part of the case against her. She's my third suspect after Skruffs and SC. The Netlava wagon I don't agree with, because in my opinion its basis is too weak; I'll expand on this subject later, but right now I only have time for a quick reply. The case against raider has been degraded to a circular argument and I owe it proper thought before I decide on it.

I do, however, think that you're more than a bit suspicious for trying to a) push multiple wagons and b) push all three popular wagons.

[Knight of Cydonia]

You're not the only one with barely time for a quick reply - I'm trying to get through Double Philosophy here as well, y'know.

[Korts]

Hey, I'm just sayin', try to give some justification.

BTW good luck with that, sounds awesome compared to the minutes of an experiment...

[Knight of Cydonia]

I will justify, but it's kind of hard to go through 61 pages of activity to get quotes, and type out why they're so scummy, whilst also trying to wrap your head around Descartes Second Meditation, y'know?
And writing out experiment minutes is precisely why I didn't take Chemistry at A level, despite getting 97% in my GCSE. That and the teacher is a bitch, but hey.

[armlx]

Let's put it this way, Net - my sister, who has played Mafia once, in a Drama lesson, looked over my shoulder as I read your posts and the case and said "He looks like Mafia to me." My kid sister, ffs. The case is good.

Thread won. Lock plz.

Oh wait, not GD.

Lynch Netlava, lock plz.

[killa seven]

Still reading alot has gone on in this game..

[Netlava]

I didn't know kids could vote.

Raider, what misunderstanding prevented you from seeing my case initially?

How would you describe my case now?

[Skruffs]

Bravo. Solid proof, KoC. Not, you know, an obvious attempt at wagoning...

@Korts: Skruffs is a better lynch than Netlava, Cass, or Raider.

a) he made a bullshit analogy; I have previously showed how it's completely flawed and ultimately WIFOM. This itself would be a minor point, if he would just try and prove his point.

b) he has so far refused to reply to my points against the analogy itself, even though I asked him multiple times. Avoidance of the topic gives me incentive to keep my vote on him.

I have not 'refused' to reply to anything, I have been unable to post to the game at all. If you want to insinuate I am intentionally avoiding you, and only you, because you 'got' me, then say so rather than belittling my intentions. : )Thanks!

Scrolling back through your posts to find what your problem with my beef with Armlx is... here;s the most recent one I feel should be responded to:

Laughable. If Skruffs can defend himself adequately, I obviously won't be so suspicious of him; you buddying up to/following Skruffs implicates

you

regardless of Skruffs' alignment. You want to address the fact that you were either buddying up to Skruffs, or basically defending him? Otherwise, feel free to continue the self-righteous OMGUSing.

This has been pointed out, by me as wlel I believe, and yet you are still focussing on me and not on SC. Presumably this will change after I have voided your reason to focus all your attention on me, but we will see.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

If the drug dealer is aware of the cop,

it's common sense for him or her not to flail at anybody

(I said that I'd personally scram, and I suppose that's WIFOM, but while you suspect me, I'm not your primary WIFOM suspect).

This part. See bolded. Translated, this means that because the scum know the town's out looking for scum, the scum will be trying not to act anti-town. Common sense, yes. WIFOM, absolutely. "If I were scum, I would/wouldn't..."-type logic is useless. Reason: scum will try to act counter-intuitively simply because of the town speculating on intuitive scum behaviour.

Okay. Theorizing about what scum would od, or not do, is completely useless, right? That's what you are saying. THe thing with WIFOM is that it's ONLY WIFOM if the person who is presenting the decisions is presenting TWO FLAWED choices, neither of which are actually the 'right' answer. You flailing abou tand saying "OMG WIFOM" does not explain why or how you think either of hte choices presented - that scum would do this or that they wouldn't - are completely false. This is most likely because you know they are NOT false, and that hopefully by just shouting WIFOM you can negate the argument from being discussable entirely - sort of like trying to declare something as inadmissable without actually saying why. So I discredit your claims that my analogy is 'wifom'.

Based on this piece of broken logic, Skruffs explains, with the analogy, that Dynamo was too scummy to have been scum. Post mortem, that's a) not saying much, and b) not very productive at all, while also being an utter fallacy. I'm convinced that if Skruffs had caught up before a Dynamo lynch, he'd most likely have been all over his wagon.

Interesting. More interesting because:

Hascow's post 726 convinced me about Dynamo's scumminess; until now I just saw him as a lurker-scapegoat, an easy D1 lynch against the lazy newbie. It's still an easy vote for scum, but I'm pretty comfortable having him lynched. His defense doesn't help much, either; "some posts of mine were pro-town" and "I'm a dumbass" don't amount to much. Also, protip, Dynamo: No Lynching D1 is a big no-no. You'll be back at the same position pretty much D2, only with a night phase having decimated the town.

unvote, vote: Dynamo

If I am not mistaken, most of my suspicions of Armlx were based on the way he endorsed an easy day one lynch, without trying to put any of his own reason, logic, intuition, etc into it. Not even just towards the day one lynch, but his 'roly poly' lurk beneath the radar attitude in general, which I have referenced several games to as my reason. His response was that I was acting similarly in other games I was a POWER role in, vs him being SCUM. If you look athte comparison, it sounds like he is trying to FISH for MY ROLE - SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE SOMEONE ELSE WAS DOING EARLIER IN THIS DAY, YES/NO???

But of course... since you two think the same way and do the same things, there is absoluteoly no reason not to say that hte two of you shouldn't also defend each other. Only unlike you, who is looking at hte person SC is defending as the more likely to be scummy, I Am looking at hte person doing the defending. ARmlx for his part is trying to avoid the conversation.

On a different note, does anybody else find Cass suspicious for voting Armlx when pressured for only FoSing him?

The armlx case isn't really convincing.

Vote Dynamo

FoS PeterG, Wolf

See previous post.

I agree with this sentiment, though I think wolf was being much more blatant.

vote: wolf

I could most likely pull up more.


I *believe* I answeree your questions 0 if I did not, please quote the eact questions you want answered after your respond to this post.
Thnsk!

[Cyberbob]

What do you mean by needs less kool-aid?

It's something of a figure of speech. Basically I'm suggesting that you need to think about your posts more.

seeing how everything can be called a distraction from one's favored lynch.

a) Incorrect.
b) Besides, I went into far greater detail on why the behaviour has been suspicious than simply "its somthan other dan teh linch lolzorz". Please read my post again.

Plus, you outright claimed he lied. I'm not sure how much stronger you could get from that.

I'm still a mite hesitant to call it definitively scummy. I don't blindly buy into LAL; in this case (as, once again, I pointed out before) I'm still ever-so-slightly on the fence as to whether he really thinks he can get away with the lie (which is scummy) or whether he simply got himself into a bit of a hole and is too stubborn to admit it (which is more of a null-tell, really).

Don't get me wrong; if it wasn't for the running interference going on every time your wagon looked like it was on track for a lynch I would probably switch my vote to him. By "very strong case indeed" I was talking about something like a cop investigation or a scum claim or something of that fairly-indisputable sort.

[Korts]

Glad to see your reply, Skruffs. Also, sorry if it was because of RL issues that you hadn't answered.

Okay. Theorizing about what scum would od, or not do, is completely useless, right? That's what you are saying. THe thing with WIFOM is that it's ONLY WIFOM if the person who is presenting the decisions is presenting TWO FLAWED choices, neither of which are actually the 'right' answer. You flailing abou tand saying "OMG WIFOM" does not explain why or how you think either of hte choices presented - that scum would do this or that they wouldn't - are completely false. This is most likely because you know they are NOT false, and that hopefully by just shouting WIFOM you can negate the argument from being discussable entirely - sort of like trying to declare something as inadmissable without actually saying why. So I discredit your claims that my analogy is 'wifom'.

Alright, your point is that scum are likely to be less active, because they don't want to slip up, right? If that's so, consider the following situation. The majority of the town agrees with you that lurkers are more likely to be scum. Do you expect scum to keep lurking? Not at all. But I already explained this in the argument with SC, so your accusation of me "flailing about and saying OMG WIFOM" without any explanation is utterly false.

Based on this piece of broken logic, Skruffs explains, with the analogy, that Dynamo was too scummy to have been scum. Post mortem, that's a) not saying much, and b) not very productive at all, while also being an utter fallacy. I'm convinced that if Skruffs had caught up before a Dynamo lynch, he'd most likely have been all over his wagon.

Interesting. More interesting because:
[quote="Korts]Hascow's post 726 convinced me about Dynamo's scumminess; until now I just saw him as a lurker-scapegoat, an easy D1 lynch against the lazy newbie. It's still an easy vote for scum, but I'm pretty comfortable having him lynched. His defense doesn't help much, either; "some posts of mine were pro-town" and "I'm a dumbass" don't amount to much. Also, protip, Dynamo: No Lynching D1 is a big no-no. You'll be back at the same position pretty much D2, only with a night phase having decimated the town.

unvote, vote: Dynamo

[/quote]

Your point, as far as I can tell, is that I voted Dynamo while I say that you probably would've done the same? I don't understand what you're trying to make of this.

If you look athte comparison, it sounds like he is trying to FISH for MY ROLE - SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE SOMEONE ELSE WAS DOING EARLIER IN THIS DAY, YES/NO?

Your point against armlx is noted, but who else are you claiming to have fished for your role?

On a different note, does anybody else find Cass suspicious for voting Armlx when pressured for only FoSing him?

So? It's a tell against Cass that she voted armlx after pressured to do so, while before that she only FoSed her with the same reasoning. Are you trying to paint this like I'm defending armlx from an attack by Cass?

[quote="Korts]The armlx case isn't really convincing.

[/quote]

It isn't. Your main point against him is that his scumhunting is subpar, which can happen

regardless

of alignment. Call that a case, 'cos I don't.

I could most likely pull up more.

[/quote][/quote]

I doubt you could. I challenge you.

I think you answered my main questions, though, so my vote goes to a much better place.

unvote, vote: StrangerCoug

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement? I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

[StrangerCoug]

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement?

That only applies in context with the analogy, which is what your cases on both of us ultimately boil down to, and for the last goddamn time, I saw the analogy as common sense. Give me something new to talk about.

I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

Oh, so you'd rather assume stuff arbitrarily and get yourself in trouble when your assumptions turn out to be wrong? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?

[Lowell]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

[Tom Mason]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

QTF on the Cass comment.

I still disagree with the case against Netlava. My gut tells me that he is clean. Far more people have been playing the blame game (i.e. Cass) until they disappear for days at a time. For all we know, her story checks out or she is hoping to be forgotten. Fact is we will not know, and it makes no difference.

If she walks on this phase and is still inactive, someone else replaces her and we are right back to square one on that role.

I feel like Cass is being overlooked by a lot of people who are so hooked on trying to lynch Netlava.

[Sineish]

Also, does anyone else find it completely strange how the Netlava wagon has stalled? Something doesn't seem right to me about that situation.

For me, although Netlava's actions yesterday were scummy, he has managed not to add anything else majorly scummy today. I'm actually considering unvoting him right now.

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

QTF on the Cass comment.

It looks like she may have access problems since she hasn't posted at all on the site for a week.

[armlx]

His response was that I was acting similarly in other games I was a POWER role in, vs him being SCUM. If you look athte comparison, it sounds like he is trying to FISH for MY ROLE - SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE SOMEONE ELSE WAS DOING EARLIER IN THIS DAY, YES/NO???

Since when is SK a "power role"?

[Cream147]

Cream, do you agree or disagree with said case.

While at first, I most certainly preferred it to the Dynamo lynch, Netlava's defense and in particular the non-use of easy escape routes that were laid out by certain people makes me think that Netlava is not the right lynch for today (I know you've already called WIFOM on this). That doesn't change the simplicity of the case at all though.

[armlx]

Ok. I thought based on the wording of your previous post you were setting up for and could be caught in a flip flop, but I was wrong.

[Korts]

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement?

That only applies in context with the analogy, which is what your cases on both of us ultimately boil down to, and for the last goddamn time, I saw the analogy as common sense. Give me something new to talk about.

And for the last time, common sense does not apply to mafia here.

I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

Oh, so you'd rather assume stuff arbitrarily and get yourself in trouble when your assumptions turn out to be wrong? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?[/quote]

What do you mean by assuming stuff arbitrarily?

[Knight of Cydonia]

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo. I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

Next post:

Unvote, vote: DynamoXI

and then:

I stated my intention in my previous post to vote dynamo. I checked the vote count, and it seemed that most of the people left were fresh replacements/inactives, so rather than wait for them, I decided that it's better to move the game along.

So you stated you were leaning not scum, then voted on him anyway, then claimed you had said you were leaning scum, when in fact you said teh exact opposite. LAL.

Oct 10th:

Well, I'll look in depth into the raider case when I have time, but I don't recall finding anything particularly scummy about him, aside from the long time he took to read the thread.

Four days, and four posts with no idication of a change of mind whatsoever later:

So yeah, if raider were to come up scum, I'd expect cyberbob-scum as well.

Anyways, I'm leaning raider scum now. His response on who he thought was scummy is also suspect.

Netlava has been flip-flopping onto what appear to be the easiest wagons to push onto a lynch all game, and has been visibly supporting a raider lynch whilst keeping his vote on the closest wagon to his (cass) in order to keep a second wagon nice and close to his. Don't know if this is distancing or a scum trying to build up a second wagon to save themselves, but I don't like it. In the last post quoted, he also accuses cyberbob-scum of trying to talk to raider-scum... by attacking him.
And now:

Well, I'm still undecided on raider. I can see him not understanding the case.

It seems like Netlava is going for targets of opportunity, rather than any solid case of real merit. Happy with my vote.

[hasdgfas]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

We don't have to get rid of cass today, though. I do think Cass is a bit scummy, but Netlava is much more so, IMO.