Mini 327 - Star Trek Mafia. Game Over.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MoS, MoS...

Why should I answer Shamrock's "accusation" when I said over and over that I believe him to be scum?

Why shouldn't you? It doesn't make you look better in anyone else's eyes. As far as it looks from here, Shamrock's accusations could be perfectly valid, and you're just hiding behind your vote against him to avoid answering them...

[Mastermind of Sin]

Short study on scummitude, with MoS showing us how it's done.

Then, saying you won't claim, but not even giving a reason for that, either.

Townies are not over-eager to claim, in general. Or to rephrase: it is not in the town's best interest to have townies claim. You should know that - if you're town, that is.

When we have 7 alive and 5 active, and 3 of those 5 are voting you, putting you 1 away from lynch, it certainly IS in the town's best interest to have you claim, whether you are scum or not. Only scum would be stubborn enough to try stalling a claim at that point.

That's a great way to make

us

think you aren't scum...

That sentence alone would get my vote, were it not invested on a high-return low-risk mafioso candidate already.

...yeah...us...the town has more than one person, you know. You're just trying to fabricate scumminess out of nowhere. That just cements my vote in place.

[DrippingGoofball]

Vote count please?

[Leonidas]

As far as it looks from here, Shamrock's accusations could be perfectly valid, and you're just hiding behind your vote against him to avoid answering them...

I marvel at your blind support for Shamrock. I also like it that you would be weighing the validity of his "accusations" - his posts have been weak to say the least - he went as far as to

agree

with both Drippin and me, only to call us both

scummy

. Very respectable construct of the mind indeed.

Re: hiding behind my vote? Shamrock's inconsistent posts earned him my vote a long time before he used more inconsistencies to vote me. Wow, we're talking major hiding... But your partiality is noted, and delights me.

When we have 7 alive and 5 active, and 3 of those 5 are voting you, putting you 1 away from lynch, it certainly IS in the town's best interest to have you claim, whether you are scum or not.

When we have 7 alive and 5 active (not including the cop), there is an overwhelming probability that the remaining scumbags are active (let's say two). In this context, if a bandwagon reaches size 3 fast, with only unclaimed roles on the bandwagon, it is very likely that the bandwagonee is innocent.

Only scum would be stubborn enough to try stalling a claim at that point.

Interesing wording... In this game, dead roles are not revealed. Therefore, scums have a lower probability of collision for any given claim. Why would scums stall a claim? They are incentivized to claim. Also, townies have an incentive not to really believe the claims -

"maybe the guy claiming Picard is telling the truth, but then again, maybe Picard is already dead...."

Overall? a townie who claims gives a lot of info to scums, and leaves the town almost indifferent.

Didn't you feel the need to ponder those elements over the course of the game?

That just cements my vote in place.

(I must admit, I am increasingly happy with my own vote )

[Mastermind of Sin]

As far as it looks from here, Shamrock's accusations could be perfectly valid, and you're just hiding behind your vote against him to avoid answering them...

I marvel at your blind support for Shamrock. I also like it that you would be weighing the validity of his "accusations" - his posts have been weak to say the least - he went as far as to

agree

with both Drippin and me, only to call us both

scummy

. Very respectable construct of the mind indeed.

I never said I supported his reasoning. I'm saying that as far as anyone else is concerned, they COULD be logical, because all you've said is very generic arguments like calling them "weak" or illogical, without actually pointing out a specific example. If you would take the time to back up your accusations with real examples and reasoning, maybe you wouldn't have gotten to 3 votes in the first place, or at least they certainly wouldn't have stayed very long.

Re: hiding behind my vote? Shamrock's inconsistent posts earned him my vote a long time before he used more inconsistencies to vote me. Wow, we're talking major hiding... But your partiality is noted, and delights me.

When your vote was placed has nothing to do with the fact that you are

citing your vote as an excuse to not answer his posts against you

.

When we have 7 alive and 5 active, and 3 of those 5 are voting you, putting you 1 away from lynch, it certainly IS in the town's best interest to have you claim, whether you are scum or not.

When we have 7 alive and 5 active (not including the cop), there is an overwhelming probability that the remaining scumbags are active (let's say two). In this context, if a bandwagon reaches size 3 fast, with only unclaimed roles on the bandwagon, it is very likely that the bandwagonee is innocent.

It's also equally likely that you have been acting very scummy and earned three votes on your own. No one here is stupid enough to just

assume

that you are innocent just because you acted scummy enough to gain 3 votes. You've got to prove it to the town just like the rest of us, first off by defending yourself, among other things.

Only scum would be stubborn enough to try stalling a claim at that point.

Interesing wording... In this game, dead roles are not revealed. Therefore, scums have a lower probability of collision for any given claim. Why would scums stall a claim? They are incentivized to claim. Also, townies have an incentive not to really believe the claims -

"maybe the guy claiming Picard is telling the truth, but then again, maybe Picard is already dead...."

Overall? a townie who claims gives a lot of info to scums, and leaves the town almost indifferent.

Didn't you feel the need to ponder those elements over the course of the game?

Now we're just getting into a WIFOM argument. Scum could just as easily balk at claiming in the hope to avoid claiming someone who

hadn't

died by accident, then say that it was the obvious play for a townie to do. You certainly wouldn't expect us to believe you to be innocent just because of WIFOM games, would you?

[Leonidas]

More 'us', eh, MoS?

:arrow: I propose that the cop reveals his investigation result of last night.

Scums already know who the innocents are, so this is good info to have for the town, especially now that people have already voted, argued, and screamed for a while.

[Zindaras]

Let's do a little analysis of what happned so far:

Alive players:
Shamrock-Claimed Riker
mlaker
Zindaras-Claimed Data, Mason with CES
Leonidas
BrizzyBoi
Mastermind of Sin
DrippingGoofball

logictitus' posts:

I dont think Sulu would do that.

no random vote from me

Protecting DG?

what did i win exactly?

Filler.

well thanks for the help max

More filler.

Wow this got way off topic real quick.

I never watched TOS, so I plead ignorance on the picture.

Return of the filler.

because you are just throwing up random pictures

More protecting DG.

Well, that was a lot of work. Apparently, the only useful things logictitus ever posted were defending DG.

Vote: DrippingGoofball

[DrippingGoofball]

Zindaras - has it occured to you that logic did that

on purpose

? I think the common wisdom in such a case where a Mafia member defends another player

not in immediate danger of being lynched

would tend to disculpate the player thus being "defended" rather than incriminate him.

You're just falling for a scum pointing to a Townie.

And the fact that you are falling for such a blatantly obvious ploy raises my suspicion of

you

. Think about it.

Would scum so overtly defend their buddy? No, they would defend a Townie, for a couple of reasons. If the Scum is lynched, the Townie looks bad, so it's good for them. If the Townie is lynched, they look like they were defending a Townie, so it's good for them. It's always good for scum to defend Townie.

When scum actually defends fellow scum, they are far more discrete about it. They will defend

without looking like they are defending

. Logic is an experienced player. He knows this very well.

[Zindaras]

Zindaras - has it occured to you that logic did that

on purpose

? I think the common wisdom in such a case where a Mafia member defends another player

not in immediate danger of being lynched

would tend to disculpate the player thus being "defended" rather than incriminate him.

You're just falling for a scum pointing to a Townie.

And the fact that you are falling for such a blatantly obvious ploy raises my suspicion of

you

. Think about it.

Would scum so overtly defend their buddy? No, they would defend a Townie, for a couple of reasons. If the Scum is lynched, the Townie looks bad, so it's good for them. If the Townie is lynched, they look like they were defending a Townie, so it's good for them. It's always good for scum to defend Townie.

When scum actually defends fellow scum, they are far more discrete about it. They will defend

without looking like they are defending

. Logic is an experienced player. He knows this very well.

Like wine, eh? Especially when it's in front of you.

[DrippingGoofball]

Like wine, eh? Especially when it's in front of you.

You're lucky to be a Mason, and having voted for logicticus. If it weren't for that, I'd vote for you for lurking, then being scummy in refusing the see a blatantly obvious scum tactic for what it is.

Mod Prod

Brizzyboi, please!

[Zindaras]

You're lucky to be a Mason, and having voted for logicticus.

Why don't you get that voting for logictitus doesn't mean anything? He was lynched over a Cop investigation. You can't get

any

information from investigation lynches, which is why some people prefer for cops to hold back their investigations.

[DrippingGoofball]

It's true that you can't get much info from the voters, but maybe a little from the non-voters. They might have held off in case someone questions the cop's sanity, or even roleclaim. Not a huge probability, but we have very little to go by.

[Zindaras]

It's true that you can't get much info from the voters, but maybe a little from the non-voters. They might have held off in case someone questions the cop's sanity, or even roleclaim. Not a huge probability, but we have very little to go by.

Or because we lynched logictitus so quickly that they couldn't say anything at all.

[BrizzyBoi]

More 'us', eh, MoS?

:arrow: I propose that the cop reveals his investigation result of last night.

Scums already know who the innocents are, so this is good info to have for the town, especially now that people have already voted, argued, and screamed for a while.

Sorry have been absent for a while, life sort of exploded in my face.

I have been previously informed, and after much thought agree with, that revealing innocent results is not in the town's best interests. It is much better to wait until I have amassed about three of them, then the town can form it's own voting block to rival the mafia.

Rest assured that if any of my innocents come close to being lynched, I will reveal their innocence to save them from Q's maliciousness.

Oh and for trying to feed the mafia a confirmed innocent

FOS: Leonidas

[Seol]

"Not to be a bore," says Q, "but I did warn you that I easily get tired of these shenanigans, and your time is running out...."

The current vote count is as follows:

Leonidas: 2 (Shamrock, Mastermind of Sin)
Shamrock: 1 (mlaker)
Mastermind of Sin: 1 (Leonidas)
DrippingGoofball: 1 (Zindaras)

[Seol]

"Oh dear", said Q, "I am disappointed. Well, I did warn you. If you can't get four heads in the same place, we'll have to make do with two. That means Leonidas gets to go for a swim in the razorfish pools."

In a typical Q flash of cheap special effects, Leonidas is suddenly bedecked in Hawaiian-patterned orange swimming shorts, which appear in crisp, sharp resolution against the fuzzy shadow of Leonidas' body. With much cajoling from Q, he dips a toe in the calm, clear blue pool, and as he gets in up to his waist you suddenly see a shoal of teeth appear. You all watch in horror as Leonidas' flesh is ripped from his bones.

"Mmm," says Q, "that lookes like the blood of an

innocent

to me. Maybe that'll scare you into trying a bit harder tomorrow?"

IT IS NOW NIGHT

. Deadline for nightchoices is

8pm GMT Thursday 22nd June

[Seol]

You wake up, take a quick sonic shower, and attach your name-tag, only to feel that familiar feeling of the cheap flash of special effect. The world around you disappears, to be replaced by level upon level of cold steel gantry and harsh green light.

"Welcome home!" says Q, "well, for some of you anyway - the rate you're going, possibly

all

of you...."

"DrippingGoofball didn't make it through the night, the poor

innocent

that she was. I'll leave you to it, I hope you can be a bit more decisive today?"

[DrippingGoofball]

[Zindaras]

Yay, we're in a lynch or lose situation.

However, with Brizzy being Cop and me being Mason, it shouldn't be impossible.

[Mastermind of Sin]

So that means it's either Me, Shamrock, or mlaker as scum. Well, two of us are scum. Obviously, that means that i'm willing to vote Shamrock or mlaker, either one, since I know they are scum. If I don't find time during MeMeMeet, I'll try to put up some sort of post analysis this coming week.

[Zindaras]

I want to know Brizzy's result. Basically, if he found non-me town, we win.

Also, though I think DG was his earlier result, I would like to know.

[mlaker]

Shamrock
mlaker
Zindaras
BrizzyBoi
Mastermind of Sin

These people are still alive. Brizzy's cop, Zindaras is mason. Analysis comes later but I think we should all claim.

[BrizzyBoi]

My most recent investigation yielded an innocent result on mlaker.

So our scummers are probably Shamrock and MoS

Ergo

Vote: Mastermind of Sin

[Zindaras]

Vote: MoS

[mlaker]

Vote MOS