Mini 722: Neapolitan Mafia (Over)

[tyhess]

Like I said, you can't clear yourself. You can claim, we can go back and look at the end of some of your posts, and figure out if it makes sense. Someone else can claim, and I can confirm one of them. I can claim, but it would do no good at this point. Especially since it would give scum an out if we eventually did mass claim.

[don_johnson]

ty: i think i'm feelin ya. good to see you are paying attention.

however, me claiming is uneccesary at this juncture.

LF still has some serious questions to answer, one of which i believe you asked. i want his take. at this point i am leaving my vote where it is. if isacc proves himself to be just a confused townie then i'll remove it. but right now i feel like he's connecting the dots that a 3 year old could have, slapping "scumgroup" on it, and trying to sell us a lynch while not coming on too strong. generally scummy behavior me thinks.

[Isacc]

Scummy behavior to connect dots and detect a scumgroup? How does that work.

Also, I'm not coming on too strong? I thought Zach's whole argument against me was how I got soooo worked up over his FOS. I felt sure strong, and I sure as hell want Zach lynched.

[tyhess]

but right now i feel like he's connecting the dots that a 3 year old could have, slapping "scumgroup" on it, and trying to sell us a lynch .

I don't like the first part of this quote for some reason.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

The vote count hasn't changed since the last vote count, but please note that tyhess did vote don_johnson and then unvote him the next page.

Also, sorry for missing those pages, you guys post very often in my evening-night hours, and I get on the least during that period.

[tyhess]

ty: i think i'm feelin ya. good to see you are paying attention.

however, me claiming is uneccesary at this juncture.

LF still has some serious questions to answer, one of which i believe you asked. i want his take. at this point i am leaving my vote where it is. if isacc proves himself to be just a confused townie then i'll remove it. but right now i feel like he's connecting the dots that a 3 year old could have, slapping "scumgroup" on it, and trying to sell us a lynch while not coming on too strong. generally scummy behavior me thinks.

If were thinking the same way, then was that your trump card?

And what about Rogue earlier?

[don_johnson]

ty: i think i'm feelin ya. good to see you are paying attention.

however, me claiming is uneccesary at this juncture.

LF still has some serious questions to answer, one of which i believe you asked. i want his take. at this point i am leaving my vote where it is. if isacc proves himself to be just a confused townie then i'll remove it. but right now i feel like he's connecting the dots that a 3 year old could have, slapping "scumgroup" on it, and trying to sell us a lynch while not coming on too strong. generally scummy behavior me thinks.

If were thinking the same way, then was that your trump card?

And what about Rogue earlier?

not playing the trump card yet. no need.

what about rogue earlier? all i said earlier was that i thought he was town. i tried to point it out to all who could decipher, exactly why i felt the way i did without giving away too much info. i think i've said this a lot: i could be totally wrong. i just wasn't going to attack someone who i thought was breadcrumbing their role.

[don_johnson]

ty: what do you think about the case against isacc?

[tyhess]

ok. I was just thinking that Rogue would be a conflict of interest of sorts.

[tyhess]

ty: what do you think about the case against isacc?

As of now, I still don't see one. I'm thinking we here from lind, and then, if we decide not to massclaim, then Zach. But then again, that could change very easily.

[Beyond_Birthday]

%%Unvote

based on some META

Honestly, I think at this point, we wait until we hear from linde. After that, if nothing come from it, I honestly believe that a mass claim is in order. This is not what I believed at the beginning when everyone thought that's what I was saying, but given some other things, I think it might be important that we do so.

Here's the reason's why. If there are good counter arguments, I'll withdraw the argument.

1) There's something to make me believe, that, based on certain META, that Don has a certain power role. If we did decide on a mass claim, I would want him to claim first.

2) We already have 2 people basically cleared as cops.

3) I should be able to confirm one person. However, I would like to wait until someone claimed a certain role before confirming someone one way or the other.

4) We can officially put to rest the even/odd issue.

5) This may also make it, if the scum really do have a role blocker, from being able to use it on the cops.

I feel like we could semi-confirm atleast 5 people. That puts us at about 50% shot at hitting scum, depending on how many are there.

Let's say that we can semi-confirm 5 people. That leaves 7, with probably at most 4 scum. We investigate 1 or 2 depending on claims at night, get a result on the 2. Now were down to 4 semi-confirmed people, with 3 of 4 people being the possible scum based on the investigations. Game over.

Again, this may be a horrible idea. If everybody else agrees that it is, I will rescind my request.

This is a horrible idea. The mafia is not stupid and neither is the mod. A good mod won't make a game breakable. That is what stupid mods do. Given that every player has a role, one of two things will happen:

1. Scum have been given safe claims and outing everyone just lets scum win.

OR

2. Scum will claim with everyone else, people will assume that the people with the watered down/useless/or otherwise unbelievable roles are scum, and we will out the few good useful roles (ie, doctor, watcher, something that doesn't have the million clauses that the cop*odd does.) and scum will know who to kill win and win the game while we sit in the mass confusion of: hmm, is this role real? Maybe there isn't a doctor and its a gambit *blah, blah blah* The idea=bad.

From my logic I must FoS Tyhess for attempting to out several roles. Seems to be handing scum a victory on a silver platter. I mean honestly, how many powerful/believable roles can there be in a 8-10 person of all power roles? The idea is ludicrous. Now, prevent some proof, and I will reconsider the idea if I agree and think it will work.

FoS Magnus:
You cannot assume that a lack of gain participation=scum.

@Nikelaos *cuts finger, just to watch something bleed*

Well that's what I get for eating dinner midway through my post. I don't think all the posts in between invalidated mine. And I don't understand why people are accepting this reporter reasoning I feel is a bit out there.

I don't know about Zach, he seemed town a while ago, but his logic has become very flawed, I don't know how to deal with him, but I'm not sure lynching him is the answer.

The reporter reasoning is about the only thing in this giant ball of discord that has turned out to be worth anything(thus far). *maybe* Rogue is reporter. It is, technically, a power role. And it would be watered down enough in this setup to not be useful until the very end when (maybe, just a guess.) Honestly, that was a decent catch by don, and I agree with his logic on that as a possibility. As magnus said, might be flavor, or might have been a very clever bread crumb that about 10 members of the town missed.

Oh, and just in case:
@Magnus: YOU IDIOT. (I like a little Argumentum ad Hominem.)
You cannot simply disregard everyone's thoughts on other people being scum just because you are so focused on lurkers that you refuse to consider anyone else scummy. At the moment, you are one of the scummiest people in the game for shoving yourself so close to everyone that when we do lynch somebody, you can say, "Oh, I was on your side, don't vote me. I did good. Oh, I was on the cop's side, so I have to be town." Whether this is the game plan for you or not is irrelevant. Stop being neutral and sitting on the fence.

[don_johnson]

B_B: i agree, massclaiming is a bad idea. it was bad for me to reveal my thoughts on rogue, because now (if he's scum) he has a perfect alibi for a fakeclaim. but i think between isacc and ty we definitely have scum. as town as ty tries to be, they just can't stop fishing for roles. and isacc, well, i think its getting obvious.

you see, here's what i love about the "post your top three best lynch list" gig: scum tend to jump at the chance. it gives them the perfect oppurtunity to gently push town towards a lynch while distancing themselves with statements like,"well you asked who i thought was best lynch, not who i thought was scum." Isacc bought it wholesale. he made sure he would have no accountability if anyone he named got lynched. even now while calling zach out as scum he can't resist giving himself an out. also, his "scumgroup", which apparently occupied 2/3 of his list(which, get this, had no scum on it) appeared once the dust settled from his argument with myself and zach, surprisingly, naming myself and zach as the most likely pair in his "scumgroup". rogue being a distant third.

the other thing thats helpful regarding the "top three list" is that scum will often include one of their scum partners on it. this lends credibility to them in case their buddy does eventually get lynched. "see, i told you guys." i am at this point officially campaigning for Isacc's lynch. if he flips town and i am alive tomorrow, tyhess would be my next target. if isacc is scum i would most likely take a long hard look at rogue. unfortunately, even if he did breadcrumb, his claiming reporter would be wifom because i have already given him the ground on which to stand. like i said: his breadcrumbing is the only thing that has made me think he is town at all. his play otherwise has been poor. magnus remains under suspicion but the more they post the more i am classifying them as "dumb town". no offense, mag.

so whaddaya say? who wants to jump on the Isacc bandwagon? cookies and juice for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nikelaos]

you see, here's what i love about the "post your top three best lynch list" gig: scum tend to jump at the chance. it gives them the perfect oppurtunity to gently push town towards a lynch while distancing themselves with statements like,"well you asked who i thought was best lynch, not who i thought was scum." Isacc bought it wholesale. he made sure he would have no accountability if anyone he named got lynched. even now while calling zach out as scum he can't resist giving himself an out. also, his "scumgroup", which apparently occupied 2/3 of his list(which, get this, had no scum on it) appeared once the dust settled from his argument with myself and zach, surprisingly, naming myself and zach as the most likely pair in his "scumgroup". rogue being a distant third.

Wait, you're claiming asking for a top three list was apparently some sort of scum trap? And Isaac fell right into it? I can't begin to go on about how ridiculous that is.

[don_johnson]

not a trap. just a really good question. why can't you go on about how ridiculous it is? i'm calling for a lynch. if you disagree then you should probably voice your opinion.

[magnus_orion]

mass claiming day 1 equals bad.

BB, I am for a rogue lynch today and agree with isacc, and am not focused on lurkers. However. I feel if rogue comes up town, those lurkers are scum

(I am now in 4 games, so my posting will drop dramatically. )

[Beyond_Birthday]

Magnus, though it is nice of you to give more opinion than just agree with everyone else, why do you prefer rogue over Zach, given the theory presented by Isaac?

@Don: Hm... your case is interesting. I am actually considering it, but Isacc could have been bluffing, then again, that isn't a defense... I'll leave it to Isacc to defend and reason from that. What is bothering me about today is that Sunday is done and gone, but I have yet to see anything from Lind... I am giving him a big ol' FoS that has no bearing on the game at all for not concluding his gambit today. If he does so early tomorrow and we're on a time change, my apologies (for nothing, literally) Lind.

[Percy]

HAI GAIZ DID I MISS ANYTHING!?!?!

Sorry for my absence. I started lecturing today and thought I could multitask, but turns out all that prep is kinda hard.

Just did a big re-read, start to present. I'll post my thoughts on how the game has flowed so far, and I will be posting every day from now on.

OK, here we go.

magnus begins by throwing the "mcnuke/zach confirmed together" argument, which I found ridiculous. When called on it, he defends himself like crazy then FoS'd tyhess for not random voting. I found his position ridiculous, and still do. tyhess mentions the possibility of a claim, and he gets jumped on by magnus again.

There was a good line to be explored, in that tyhess made what is traditionally viewed as an anti-town suggestion and then made some grammatical slip-ups. However, with magnus' vigour the whole thing went down the toilet. Instead of investigating him sensibly, he misquotes, misreps and tries to cloak it all in a veneer of "logical premises".

Isacc and LF then go at it. I felt that Isacc's position was rather sensible in 112, but I understand where LF is coming from when he says "let tyhess talk himself out of his own problems".

We then have the LF claim with zach. Psycho asks for a full claim from zach, and it appears magnus now has no qualms about people talking about claiming.

@Magnus: Why was tyhess' plan not worth 'waiting and seeing' for, but LF's and Psycho's was?

I agree with LF's assessment that don's language in 215 was possibly a good launching pad for a day 2 lynch. I begin to get a scumread from don.

Magnus adopts LF's line of "defending someone else is a scumtell" in 224. Buddying up to the confirmed cop?

After psycho's claim, Nikelaos says in 263 that he essentially believes Zach and encourages him not to claim. I think guessing right in a 50/50 situation, with possible wriggle room if a scumpartner was to step in and be the "other odd person", is nowhere near enough to earn him your level of trust. Magnus picks up on this, and both Nik and Zach defend themselves. Let's say zach guessed luckily. I don't see how Nik defending him as a scumpartner can be taken out of the equation.

@Nik, zach: Can you give me any reason as to why the possibility of you two being a scumpair is not worth considering?

Magnus engages in some WIFOM and attacks Isacc's "top 3" for being not thorough enough. Also,

to a lesser extent and later

, his use of the "we could learn from their deaths". I was suspicious of Rogue, Magnus and Don, so singling them out was fine with me, and I knew the reasons were light. The fact that Don has now tried to imply that Isacc's response (or even the fact that he responded at all) is a scumtell is just ridiculous.

The zach/isacc exchange has me leaning isacc, hard. Basically I dislike the OMGUS, WIFOM and misrep that he uses - I believe Isacc picked up on all the relevant examples, so I won't requote. Furthermore, zach has been saying, essentially, that defending yourself is a scumtell by calling it "being defensive", but I think Isacc has explained himself rather well. zach intentionally misreads, and a frustrated Isacc then bolds and capitalizes. Suddenly, that's Isacc being defensive! I think not.

Don continues to ping my scumdar for three reasons. Firstly, statements such as these:

i cannot attach myself to scum partners because i am not scum. if you lynch me, i will come up town.

Secondly, he has stated that he thinks Rogue is town, and that there is some 'trump card' he has waiting. I just don't believe it. I think I know what he's picked up on - Rogue is a Reporter. It could be useful to confirm even/odd roles, so I'm not willing to rule it out. Everyone knows now, and you've basically used the Streisand Effect to your advantage, making everyone comb over his posts to find it.
Finally, your insistence that tyhess claim was not a pro-town suggestion. You just thought you'd caught him out, and were trying to make him squeal for you. What would have happened if he had gotten frustrated and claimed? How would that have been good for the town?

I liked Isacc's analysis in 443, and thought it gelled with a lot of what I was already thinking.

Top 2 Scum:
Magnus - He's basically attacked everyone for stupid reasons, destroyed good lines of investigations and caused havoc. I haven't been convinced by a single thing he's said, and I don't like his buddying up to LF. He's also been inconsistent with both his attacks and his approach to theory. All of this screams scum. His attack on zach was weak and wagonish, and also makes be think "distancing".

Zach - I now believe zach fluked his 50/50 chance. LF's trap was not really a trap, it was a gamble - it didn't really confirm zach, and now with Psycho's counterclaim, Isacc's solid investigation and zach's poor reaction (esp. his misrep and strawmanning), I'm pretty happy with calling him scum.



Next 2 on suspicion list:
Don - For the reasons stated above. I also like the Don/zach pairing analysis in Isacc's post. Also, what is with the hair fixing and cellphone checking? Can you explain to me why you do this? Are you just being 'random'?

Nikelaos - His defense of zach is totally weird, and I don't like it.


Each of these people have been posed questions by me. They are not rhetorical. Answer them.

Town reads:
Lindisfarne - still think his claim is pretty solid

Psycho - I think his claim is

far

more sensible and believable than zach's.

Isacc - I find his analysis thorough and mature.



Almost null reads on B_B, RS, McNuke and tyhess.

[don_johnson]

The fact that Don has now tried to imply that Isacc's response (or even the fact that he responded at all) is a scumtell is just ridiculous.

why are two people calling this ridiculous? am i the only one who sees the GIANT CONTRADICTION of releasing a "top three best lynch list" which CONTAINS NO SCUMMY PLAYERS, yet INCLUDES TWO PLAYERS FROM ISACCS ALLEGED "SCUMGROUP" which he formed way back when. noone else sees this coincidence? noone else notices that Isacc has now included zach in the group without ever mentioning any members of said group beforehand? its real easy to go back and say, "well yeah, that's just what i thought." whatever.

Don continues to ping my scumdar for three reasons. Firstly, statements such as these:

i cannot attach myself to scum partners because i am not scum. if you lynch me, i will come up town.

as i said. this is fact. provable upon my death. i stand by this statement.

Secondly, he has stated that he thinks Rogue is town, and that there is some 'trump card' he has waiting. I just don't believe it. I think I know what he's picked up on - Rogue is a Reporter. It could be useful to confirm even/odd roles, so I'm not willing to rule it out. Everyone knows now, and you've basically used the Streisand Effect to your advantage, making everyone comb over his posts to find it.
Finally, your insistence that tyhess claim was not a pro-town suggestion. You just thought you'd caught him out, and were trying to make him squeal for you. What would have happened if he had gotten frustrated and claimed? How would that have been good for the town?

ty would not have claimed. i asked him to show just how ridiculous his idea was. yes it was a gamble, but go ahead and reread the exchange. i break his logic down rather nicely. then he backtracks on his idea and states that a mass claim is a great idea as long as don goes first. if he had gotten frustrated and claimed then he would have given credibility to his theory. he did not. would it have been good for town? no way of knowing that, but according to his logic it would have, and yet he didn't do it. hmm.

Top 2 Scum:
Magnus - He's basically attacked everyone for stupid reasons, destroyed good lines of investigations and caused havoc. I haven't been convinced by a single thing he's said, and I don't like his buddying up to LF. He's also been inconsistent with both his attacks and his approach to theory. All of this screams scum. His attack on zach was weak and wagonish, and also makes be think "distancing".

Zach - I now believe zach fluked his 50/50 chance. LF's trap was not really a trap, it was a gamble - it didn't really confirm zach, and now with Psycho's counterclaim, Isacc's solid investigation and zach's poor reaction (esp. his misrep and strawmanning), I'm pretty happy with calling him scum.

i disagree with these. both suspicious, yes, but not the most scummy.

Next 2 on suspicion list:
Don - For the reasons stated above. I also like the Don/zach pairing analysis in Isacc's post. Also, what is with the hair fixing and cellphone checking? Can you explain to me why you do this? Are you just being 'random'?

nothing yet. no. no.


[quote='percy"]Isacc - I find his analysis thorough and mature.
[/quote]

wow. what thread are you reading?

my activity may be down til wednesday, but i'd like others to have a chance to read through and post some thoughts anyway.

[don_johnson]

ebwop

Psycho - I think his claim is far more sensible and believable than zach's.

oh yeah. i don't believe zach claimed. just let out some minor details of his role.

[tyhess]

Don...I've told you like 12 time. I feel like I can confirm a person, depending on the roles that they claim. That's why I wanted other people to go first. And as I've said like 12 other times, you can't clear yourself. The issue we were discussing was your clearing Rogue.

[tyhess]

and Zach claimed to have an odd role.

[don_johnson]

and Zach claimed to have an odd role.

oh yeah. i don't believe zach claimed. just let out some minor details of his role.

why are you repeating me?

Don...I've told you like 12 time. I feel like I can confirm a person, depending on the roles that they claim. That's why I wanted other people to go first. And as I've said like 12 other times, you can't clear yourself. The issue we were discussing was your clearing Rogue.

12 or a million? you cannot "confirm" anyone. i am beginning to think that this is just a clever ploy for you to "confirm" yourself.

TWO MAJOR ISSUES:

ty- if you ask someone to claim, you can easily fakeclaim to "confirm" both of you. if you are scum, you would know the person you are confirming is town and would then, upon their death, say "see, now i'm confirmed." this is a giant hole in your logic that has not been explained. is it wifomic? certainly. therefore it is not a good plan.

Isacc- earlier wrote, "i have a scumgroup theory." at no point did he attach names to said theory until very recently. this is seriously scummy. by leaving an open ended suspicion out there Isacc left himself the option of placing ANY ONE OF US into his "theory" at a later date and then pointing back to his original statement and saying,"yeah, see i thought so." extremely wifomic. therefore not good logic.

between the two i believe Isacc less. he is leaving himself way too many outs if his plan goes wrong. according to ty he believes he can confirm someone, but he is not willing to let it work the other way. i.e. if ty claims then someone else should be able to confirm

him

. so why must the other person go first?

one fo these two is scum. they didn't fall into a trap, but they did answer an extremely telling question poorly. their answers were devoid of logical reasoning and extremely non committal.

[Rogue Shenanigans]

Hard pushed to follow this thread over the past couple days. Bad time managment coupled with poor self displine I suppose. Dont want to lurk though, any summary anyone can give me would be helpful. I do promise to go back over the past few pages for the purpose of scumhunting at some point though. Just dont want to put it off to the point where I get lurkerlynched.

[Zachrulez]

and Zach claimed to have an odd role.

Excuse me?

Don't you mean even?

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

Vote Count bump.