Mini 917 -- Precision Mafia (Game Over)

[popsofctown]

flawless victory.

[AlmasterGM]

Finish him!

Town wins!

(Metaphorically, that is).

[popsofctown]

hm? we still have players that need to burn

[popsofctown]

Prod: Cruciare

Everyone, read the thread and burn one if you need to.

Fate, pick one of the leading people to be the burn victim. It just needs to be somebody.

Will do.

[Fate]

Oh ok, now I'm fine with lynching fifi...

Well between McGriddle and Iecrint I rather Iecrint burn.

[The1fifi]

Ffs, forgot to unvote.. meh, too many mistakes and bad game for me.

[The1fifi]

Sorry almaster and cruciare

[popsofctown]

Blacklist? Up to you

[popsofctown]

Guess we play pragmatic for the meantime..

My burn vote changes to Cruciare.

[AlmasterGM]

The Town of Precision Mafia: Catching scum on Day 1, Page 1 since 2010.

Anyway, I'm not scum, so fifi clearly isn't completely mentally incapacitated. AFA burning Cruciare goes, I think it's a bad play. As evidenced by fifi's self-vote, the scum clearly want this round's burn plan to fail, so letting them manipulate the targets seems like a Very Bad Idea.

I think we should stick with Iecrint.

[popsofctown]

Cruciare's activity level doesn't really make him a bad investigation target anyhow, Almaster. There was really little reason to pick anyone over anyone else for the D1 burn. If fifi's statement is anything BUT a towntell (which, i suppose from your PoV it is a towntell), then there's a reason for someone to burn that's much less arbitrary than who's lurking hardest.

Speaking of burns, what's a good amount? I'd say 8 plus the standard one burn for the day. I think we can stand it. 27-9votes-1lynch-8burn= 9 night actions. Is my math wrong? That seems to work for a fiesta of PRs. (27 is our townies plus a commander guess)

Fifi probably at least gave us the correct number of scums. So I feel alright about my calculations.

[Iecerint]

I'm the one who picked out fifi early game. If you think I was distancing or whatever, that's fine, but it's not as if I tried to derail the wagon after it became popular.

[AlmasterGM]

I'm the one who picked out fifi early game. If you think I was distancing or whatever, that's fine, but it's not as if I tried to derail the wagon after it became popular.

No offense, but "I stayed on the fifi wagon" isn't exactly evidence of township. The man was obvscum. Either way, though, I guess I can accept a Cruciare burn if everyone is game for that. He is playing Mr Lurk.

[Iecerint]

It's not (just) "I stayed on the fifi wagon" so much as "I made the fifi wagon." If our goal is to find the second-most-scummy player to burn, I would appear to be the least obvious choice, unless you have reason to believe that it was all an elaborate gambit. I'd like to think I wouldn't be so heartless as to fail to fix matters when things got out of hand, though.

If there is a compelling reason I am a second scumlord of this game, I would love to hear it. Seriously.

[AlmasterGM]

Given fifi's actions, I still don't consider that incredibly compelling. Sure, you spat out the first FoS, but shit was going to hit the fan either way, and you know it. Other people were on him too. That being said, I don't have some compelling case against you or anything, and I never claimed to. Here is how I see things:

There are three types of reads.

Town <-- Trust
No read <-- Burn
Scum <--Lynch

The middle category is the most dangerous. I think you are in that category. Thus, I think you should burn so I can move you into one of the other two.

[Iecerint]

If you want readless players to burn (not a bad strategy, though I'd prefer probablescum>readless>likelyscum>town>obvscum), you should have lurkers and jokers burn. I account for 18% of the posts in this game. I have given you relatively more data from which to construct a read.

[Fate]

Your defense, Iecerint, hinders solely on the fact that f1f1 is scum.

Are you being reluctant to burn?

[Iecerint]

People voted on burn targets before fifi claimed scum. It would slightly alarm me if people's burn targets did not change as a result of that. That is the point of my having brought it up.

It doesn't take a genius to see that I am reluctant to burn. I am not scum; it is better that literally anyone else burn. If my play today had been such that suspicion of me was warranted (e.g. if I had defended fifi early on or something), I would be less reluctant. But things being what they are, I intend to prod people who have targeted me at the very least.

[popsofctown]

You can't play a self-righteous "this is what what has been chosen" since it was never a majority anyway.

Players, regardless of alignment, don't want they themselves to be the one to burn.

Let's see what people want and decide.

[Fate]

Sorry almaster and cruciare

Oh ****. I missed the scumclaim. Thought he was just frustrated at the game mechanics and wanted to self-hammer...

Yeah in that case, Cruciare > McGriddle for a burn vote.

[AlmasterGM]

If you want readless players to burn (not a bad strategy, though I'd prefer probablescum>readless>likelyscum>town>obvscum), you should have lurkers and jokers burn. I account for 18% of the posts in this game. I have given you relatively more data from which to construct a read.

If I get my way, we will be lynching the lurkers and jokers. Why should we waste a burn on them? If they flip town, all we've done is confirm that we have some useless fluff sitting around. They can die. You, on the other hand, account for "18% of the posts in the game." Knowing whether you are town or scum will be very useful.

Your defense, Iecerint, hinders solely on the fact that f1f1 is scum.

Have you been reading the thread?

[Fate]

Nope. I'll admit a scum claim isn't the first thing I look for when skimming.

Who's up for Almaster burn?

If I get my way, we will be lynching the lurkers and jokers.

That's cool. Why didn't you SHOOT one of them?

[Iecerint]

You can't play a self-righteous "this is what what has been chosen" since it was never a majority anyway.

Players, regardless of alignment, don't want they themselves to be the one to burn.

Is the first directed at me? Because I don't believe I've used that rhetoric. Show plz.

The second sentence is something I already pointed out.

That's a bit better, @ Alma, even if it's a bit of a backtrack. Earlier you wanted to burn "no read" players. Now you want to burn active players, since knowing their alignments is more informative. Both are reasonable perspectives, but they're a bit mutually exclusive IMO.

[Iecerint]

More Alma inconsistency found by Fate innit.

Who was it that said that Alma was confirmed town after he shot SC earlier? I forgot.

[bv310]

Here you go,

Vote: Pops

I still disagree with this plan until it actually results in a scum lynch, which this almost certainly isn't.

If we do catch scum today, then more power to it.