Karma Mafia (Game Over!)

[Albert B. Rampage]

Do you have any weak reads? What's the best you've got?

BV for the reasons I mentioned.

[Pomegranate]

Do you have any weak reads? What's the best you've got?

BV for the reasons I mentioned.

What about this:

Right now I don't care who gets lynched as long as it's not me.

Isn't it better to lynch on a slight read than on nothing at all?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Why do you think I'm voting BV?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote, vote POMEGRANATE

[Albert B. Rampage]

The stupid rhetorical questions must be coming from scum, I can't see any other scenario.

[Papa Zito]

Now I'm confused. ABR's not scum? Ugh, you people.

[bv310]

That post was meant to be "If he's vig". That's what "if he is" means. How many scum vig's do you know of?

[Sando]

Ojanen - Falling clearly into town-meta, good points on Esp, not happy to simply go along with the rest of town.

Papa Zito - You call Pom scum, then point to BVs scumslip, which Pom was the first person vocalise in thread afaik.

CKD - Yep, over-reacting like that (richard) is scummy. Over-reaction combined with literally no scumhunting, yep, that's scummy. People making generalised statements about someone being town with little to no evidence to back it up, then following that with vague threats, yep, that's scummy. Do you think that constantly defending yourself and never actually scumhunting is pro-town?

Anon - A list without reasoning is pretty useless. Also, noone ever claims that a scumtell is 100% accurate, you've gone from 'this is a huge scumtell' to 'this is not a scumtell at all' in the space of one game, I'm still not buying this.

CKDs questioning of Anon, I don't really see the contradiction between saying that 'pushing for a reaction' is a good scum-ploy, and Anon saying that he was pushing for a reaction. It's a good scum-ploy because it is good town play. Anon's response seems quite conciliatory on this point, not what I would expect.

Dybecks claim that the BV case is wishy-washy etc is classic attempt at derailing. No reasoning is provided, it's all generalisations and no content, and all seemingly aimed at simply throwing a spanner in the wagon. Followed by the wishy-washy responses to questioning and the desperate leap onto the Esp wagon. I'm not sure how Dybeck got away without that being raised really...

[RichardGHP]

Checking in.

I voted for bv because he's the largest wagon other then myself and my top scum read clearly isn't being lynched today.

[Patrick]

boberz replaces Snow_Bunny. He's told me he's busy today but will start reading tomorrow.

[Javert]

Bonjour!

The biggest challenge in this game will clearly be differentiating anti-town play from scummy play, because there has been an awful lot of anti-town play. I will try to cover what seem to be the biggest subject areas in this post.

1.)

RichardGHP is an interesting csae. I originally thought he was scummy, then I thought he probably newb-town and very unhelpful, and then I read his posts in isolation in Mafia 107, and I think he is scummy again.

In Mafia 107, as Town JoaT, he was somewhat proactive, and definitely aggressive. In this game, he is just letting and inviting people walk all over him, and I am not feeling a genuine interest to hunt for scum from his posts. His posts seem to be trying to match what he thinks a townsperson would do and say. Comparing his play of this game to Mafia 107 is really like reading two different players.

I believe his explanation here of the “gambit” was made up after the fact. I believe the post “vote me” was indeed borne of frustration. And I can see frustration existing for any alignment. But the quote that tips the balance for me is:

C'mon, you really can't empathise with being

panicked

and frustrated when 1 person votes you three times?

My answer: No. I tend to get panicked when I'm scum and somebody seems serious about their vote – it can be a scary experience. But when I'm town and somebody seems to be serious with their vote, I generally just get

annoyed

unless the vote is actually putting me in danger.

I think there is actually a pretty good chance of RichardGHP being scum.

Unvote: Sando, Vote: RichardGHP

.

2.)

bv310 I am not actually all that concerned with – I change my mind all the time while I read games, especially on Day Ones. I would be more concerned if he did not recognize the fact that he has been changing his opinion.

3.)

I am not feeling anything on the Anon / farside22 argument. I see both sides.

4.)

One player who doesn't seem to be getting any attention that has caught my eye:

vote Richard

Its only a policy lynch if he is expecting everyone to vote that way, he hasnt given any reasoning therefore I think he probably was still being random. Your automatic assumption that its a policy lynch on the basis of nothing is interesting though.

This sounds disingenuous. When somebody votes another player twice, saying “trust me, it will be easier this way,” it is quite appropriate to assume they are voting you on policy. Not only that, but CKD did not have to provide reasons because he instead asked for players to “trust him.” Besides, even if it is arguably not a “policy

lynch

” it was certainly a “policy

vote

.”

The rest of Porochaz's play seems largely to be theory-based discussion on the subject of why there shouldn't be so much theory-based discussion in games. His play is really feeling like a commentator outside the game moreso than somebody trying to hunt for scum inside the game.

Also, I can't

quite

put my finger on it, but there is something about Post 120 that strikes me as being off. I've tried to explain it about four times, but it never comes out right. The post isn't really an appeal to emotion, but it feels like something very similar to that vein.

–

Unrelated to who I think is scummy / townish:

If I were a vig, I'd vig Albert B. Rampage for being intentionally useless. You can at least ask questions or poke at people more. It's a good thing everybody doesn't take your attitude on Day One, or we would never get anywhere.

[Porochaz]

Thought someone would attack 120, suprised it took this long though. I understand totally what you are saying but before I decided to totally disregard my early posts about having more fun and not being serious I felt it necassery to differentiate myself from someone who would just spam the crap out of a thread. Which ended up being that post which I don't like much either, but as I'm not defending myself in regards to alignment, it doesnt mean much.

I disagree with your first point on the basis that we were still in the random stage and that any player who votes day 1 based on trust rather than fact is very iffy in my book. It is also in that stage of the game appropriate to assume the vote is random. Policy lynches to me are only actually policy when someone explains why they are what they are. A policy is only a policy if there is one there! I don't like policy lynches in any case, they cause the essence of a game to collapse and don't allow second chances. Your point about lynch/vote is a minor one. When talking about removing a terrible player from a game by voting, you are aiming for a lynch, thus policy lynching. Whats the point in policy voting, you are forming a one man army against someone who plays bad.

Arguably CKD was policy voting in his posts, he didnt give any reasoning. However his push to "trust him" and voting Richard 3 times and the fact that he did say it was partial policy suggests that he was actually pushing for a lynch and others to vote with him. Hence why I wrote policy lynch.

But that is largely theory yet again, and my theory on theory seems to be a ridiculous mistake on my part. Saying rather than doing. In regards to being a commentator to this game rather than being

in

this game. I totally agree, whilst I would say Im not the worst offender in this regard, I am having to play this game in a different way than I would like simply because as I said before, I dropped my laptop and its away to get fixed, so when I do get on its during study at the library so it has to be quick posts based on my quick reads. As Richard is no. 1 on my list I am more likely to comment on his latest post. The bv wagon interests me but as Richard is still in the game, not so much and the Anon/farside argument does not interest me at all.

I should point out I have the afternoon off of uni hence the longer post.

In summary: I agree with your last two points, I disagree with your first point on policy and gave a large explanation why.

I like your first post however, you may also have a gold star.

[Papa Zito]

Papa Zito - You call Pom scum, then point to BVs scumslip, which Pom was the first person vocalise in thread afaik.

You are quite clearly wrong. Go back and read it again.

Pom is scum because she's point-scoring against a player that others are already targeting without offering anything new. (Seraphim, Prozac and I all asked ABR things to try to get him involved; mine went ignored, unfortunately) This is similar to when she decided to get involved with the Richard wagon.

That post was meant to be "If he's vig". That's what "if he is" means. How many scum vig's do you know of?

That's not what you wrote. Here's what you wrote:

1. If Zito is a vig, then Espeonage has outed Zito.
2. If Zito is not a vig, then scum will NK Zito and we've lost a townie.

There's no room for me to be scum in this. Because you know I'm not scum. Woops.

[Patrick]

Votecount

farside22 (1) -- Snow_Bunny
Albert B. Rampage (1) -- My Milked Eek
RichardGHP (8) -- Porochaz, Faraday, Sando, Jahudo, bv310, NickF227, Pomegranate, Javert
bv310 (7) -- Papa Zito, Anon, Seraphim, Espeonage, farside22, curiouskarmadog, RichardGHP
Espeonage (2) -- Ojanen, dybeck
Pomegranate (1) -- Albert B. Rampage

Not voting: Nobody
20 alive, 11 to lynch.

[Faraday]

hey ppl. just posting to say i'm back as my net wasn't stable during the weekend like i expected and i only checked the site occasionally.

[Ojanen]

I disagree with your first point on the basis that we were still in the random stage and that any player who votes day 1 based on trust rather than fact is very iffy in my book. It is also in that stage of the game appropriate to assume the vote is random. Policy lynches to me are only actually policy when someone explains why they are what they are. A policy is only a policy if there is one there! I don't like policy lynches in any case, they cause the essence of a game to collapse and don't allow second chances. Your point about lynch/vote is a minor one. When talking about removing a terrible player from a game by voting, you are aiming for a lynch, thus policy lynching. Whats the point in policy voting, you are forming a one man army against someone who plays bad.

Arguably CKD was policy voting in his posts, he didnt give any reasoning. However his push to "trust him" and voting Richard 3 times and the fact that he did say it was partial policy suggests that he was actually pushing for a lynch and others to vote with him. Hence why I wrote policy lynch.

Is this totally incoherent, or missing negations that you braintypoed out somewhere?
Your own original argument was from the perspective that it was scummy of Richard to assume that Ckd's voting was based on policy. You seem to argue something sort of opposite here.

[Porochaz]

At the time it was scummy for Richard to assume that CKD was voting based on policy rather than random. CKD has since stated:

no, its true, partial policy lynch...partial random..

if that is scummy on page 4, bring on the votes bitches.

which makes Richard correct (or half correct) in regards to it being a policy lynch. However I still maintain its scummy to automatically think so. The bit about vote vs lynch was mostly theory and how it effected this case.

Another point to make, now that Ive quoted it, is CKD wrote policy lynch himself not policy vote. But I feel Im arguing semantics here...

[Albert B. Rampage]

Wow, terrible reasons for voting Richard.

I have no intention of "starting a bandwagon", or "drawing up a case", but I think pomegranate outweighs bv310 (what kind of name is that?) and richard in scumminess by bricks.

[Porochaz]

Why? I want to convince you Richard is a better lynch than your random Pom vote.

[Papa Zito]

Pom vote is a good vote. Also I'm happy to see the competing wagons. That'll pay dividends later I expect.

Checking in.

I voted for bv because he's the largest wagon other then myself and my top scum read clearly isn't being lynched today.

Who's that again?

[Ojanen]

@mod: requesting a prod on Espeonage.

And when you get here, Esp, please answer:

I admitted somewhere that my case on Anon wasn't the most solid of things around. That is why I backed off.

So why was Anon's post "one of the worst readthroughs you'd ever seen" again?

and
why was Anon's catchup the worst readthrough ever, while MME's post was full of win?

Also, I agree that Porochaz' reasoning on the Richard being scummy because he thought ckd conducting a policy vote on him (and was right about it!) was really really weak. Ckd said it was partial policy before Porochaz' vote, and obviously the situation came with some context from another game.

[Pomegranate]

Hate to say this, but

@Mod, and everyone else too: I will be V/LA from about now until Wednesday night because of Passover.

[Patrick]

Espeonage, My Milked Eek, NickF227 and curiouskarmadog prodded.

[Espeonage]

picking up Prod. Sorry I have three assessments all due today and have been working on them. i will answer questions in about 8 hours when I have some free time. I hate tuesdays.

[boberz]

I exist, have just got in will begin read tomorrow morning, feeling very tired. Is there anything people would like to point out to me or have me comment on specifically for when I finish the read.

I normally read quickly I wont let it become lurking.