Mini 482: Shrek Mafia - Game Over

[Dead Rikimaru]

The rules do not state this is a no-role reveal game, so I hope there is an ingame event (a player power, a character's death) that triggers the role revealing.
No role reveal games are very hard for town to win, since every lynch is more or less a day 1 lynch.
Ah, and it's also not fun at all.

[Grek]

BAH! Go town.

[Mirth]

Arg, Mondays are my hell.

I did a quick skim back to see whose late actions were suspicious. That would be you and Mirth.

Deadline is in 8 minutes, I believe. Unless I'm mistaken, I think that InHim is sharing a majority with Goldfish, but got it first.

Failure to act is as bad, or even worse, than acting wrongly.

How, exactly? (I miscounted, yes, and missed one of the votes on Grek.) I'm of the philosophy that our doctor, if Pug is an effective doctor, gave us a head start. We don't know how many scum we have and I didn't like any of the options being voted. I'm also not going to vote if a) my main suspect has nothing to do with an established bandwagon in a deadlined situation and b) I don't like who the bandwagons are on. Any vote other than on Inhim, Goldfish, or Grek at that point would have been meaningless.

Also, I don't agree with your attacking Mexal for posting first. It's a crap!logic argument you have. A townie could just as easily try to trace the night kill.

Now then, I won't take up Glork's bet, but I will

Vote: Haschel

. I'd like to hear what Pug has to say first.

[Glork]

Now then, I won't take up Glork's bet, but I will

This is :goodposting:.

[Oman]

The rules do not state this is a no-role reveal game, so I hope there is an ingame event (a player power, a character's death) that triggers the role revealing.
No role reveal games are very hard for town to win, since every lynch is more or less a day 1 lynch.
Ah, and it's also not fun at all.

At least we get allignment.

[FaerieLord]

Town: InHim / Glrok
Suspect:Delicious Goldfish / Mirth

Zindy link to Mirth
Mirth anti link to Grek
Inhim anti link to Nox
Pbug link to Camisade


Grek: 36. -1
Be honest now. Did you actually think that the scum would quick lynch nox? And are you sure the scum would be ones to hammer not overzealous townies?

Mirth: 38. -1
Stop beating on a dead horse. Trying to hard to push the wagon

Benhalkum: 47. -1
You were asked a question, you ignored it to only post a small joke

Mirth: 63. -1
Trying to make yourself seem as townie in people's eyes. Throwing the "pity me" card

Benhalkum: 69. -1
I don't like your answer. Even my cute little puppy can post a better answer.

Benhalkum: 73 -1
Accusing camisade and pbug of not being townie aligned while waving the townie card

Delicious Goldfish: 78 -1
After lurking all that time you just barn opinions

Grek: 85 -1
People backing off because of over cooking, and you start it all over again

Benhalkum: 92 -1
Err...yes you do need to explain.

Benhalkum: 99 -1
Back-peddling and admitting you are lying. Keep it up scum

Grek: 102 -1
Stop suggesting Jester. Its not even funny.

Mirth: 105 -1
Nice fishing pole, how much did it cost?

Zindy: 109 -1
Stop suggesting Jester. Its really frustrating. Lets just no lynch until day 999 so that we won't let the jester friggin win!

Mirth: 115 -1
You are trying too hard to get gerk out of this game

Grek: 116 -1
You made the cop analogy, which you say was false (you said you weren't breadcrumming) but now you call mirth out for doing the raven analogy?

Mirth: 120 -1
Do you like fighting or are you just trying your best to disagree with everyone?

Haschel: 121 -999
Stop making PBPAs. They are annoying and almost nobody reads them :p

Mirth: 129 -1
Indipendent Thinking = getting deadlines imposed. You should try convincing, its a good tactic

Benhalkum: 135 -1
You are no jester, but you sir are a joker!

Benhalkum: 138 -1
Yes, thank you. I do play mafia, though thanks for stating the obvious captain!

Jex: 143 -1
I think he really appreciated your condolences about the neighbour

Benhalkum: 147 -1
Do you know where I keep the cows and sheep in harvest moon? In the BARN!

Delicious Goldfish: 148 -1
And appears again to state the obvious and to read my point about Benhalkum

Delicious Goldfish: 150 -1
Speculating is sooo out of place at this point

Delicious Goldfish: 154 -1
I prefer Red Wine thank you. 1600s sounds nice, if you don't mind.

Mirth: 155 -1
That's the way Mirth, distance yourself from the suspect. Nobody will put you in the light like this eh?

Gerk: 183 -1
STOP MENTIONING THE FUCKING JESTERS! STOP STOP STOP!

Mirth: 205 -1
Bring a glass as well in front of me. I hate drinking wine from the bottle

Mexal: 230 -1
Sorry but PBug has posted original content towards the beginning. I cannot see where you are coming from. Also, lovely avatar

Delicious Goldfish: 235 -1
I saw no read on Nox

Mirth: 245 -1
Ahahahaha, language minding.

Mirth: 350 -1
Speculating

Oman: 358 -1
Look above

Rest that are speculating: X -1
Look above

General Note. Don't base roles on name claims. Name claims suck to determining role!

I skipped some 50 posts, because I got bored reading. That is all

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I got out of the first day. I reread them all, and somewhat disagree with some of my points, though I can live with some. I left my initial opinions all there

That is all

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Vote Count

Zindaras (1): Glork
Pug89 (1): Haschel Cedricson
Haschel Cedricson (1): Mirth

6 to lynch

[Oman]

Vote Pug

1. I want to hear who he protected.
2. I know he claimed doc, but claims dont mean truth
3. Its -4
4. where is he? I feel like he escaped yesterday based on inhim's shafty vote on grek and is now off frollicing in scumland.

[Dead Rikimaru]

The rules do not state this is a no-role reveal game, so I hope there is an ingame event (a player power, a character's death) that triggers the role revealing.
No role reveal games are very hard for town to win, since every lynch is more or less a day 1 lynch.
Ah, and it's also not fun at all.

At least we get allignment.

Not useful enough.
Suppose Jex (who didn't claim but was still suspicious of Pug's claim) was the real doctor. Now Pug can claim doc as much as he wants unharmed.
Also, scum can claim whatever they feel like because they will either out the real role or have no counterclaim.

[Oman]

A good point. I was merely being optimistic.

[Zindaras]

Vote: Zindaras

Thirty bucks says he's scum. Any takers?

I'll take it. And you'll need to explain why.

How, exactly? (I miscounted, yes, and missed one of the votes on Grek.)

Yes. In word, you voted inHim, saying that he was going to die but not doing anything about it. In reality, you voted Grek, as you did nothing to stop his death.

Not acting is a similar choice to acting. And it's one that scum loves. It's avoiding responsibility, avoiding getting in trouble the next day.

I'm of the philosophy that our doctor, if Pug is an effective doctor, gave us a head start.

So what? This is irrelevant.

We don't know how many scum we have and I didn't like any of the options being voted.

Again, so what? We know we have scum (unless Scope decided to make this a joke game), so what's the problem? We

have

to catch scum. There are two possible ways to view the situation, and both of them lead to a vote:

1) I don't like any of these votees. I'm going to vote my main suspicion instead.
2) I don't like any of these votees, but since one of them is going to die, I'm going to vote the scummiest from the set.

2 is the generally used train of thought (and, in my opinion, the correct one, assuming ceteris paribus, in other words, no one else is going to change his vote). 1 is a possiblity. But there is

no

reason not to vote.

I'm also not going to vote if a) my main suspect has nothing to do with an established bandwagon in a deadlined situation and b) I don't like who the bandwagons are on. Any vote other than on Inhim, Goldfish, or Grek at that point would have been meaningless.

If nobody votes their main suspect if there is not an established bandwagon on him, we will never get a lynch, because no one will vote.

If your main suspect is not on the chopping block, it is your duty as townie to try to make sure that he gets on there.

Also, I don't agree with your attacking Mexal for posting first. It's a crap!logic argument you have. A townie could just as easily try to trace the night kill.

There's a lot more to this than just tracing the night kill. Mexal drew conclusions from it, as seen in his post:

So for now, that's where I'm going to be looking.

And, as far as townies tracing the nightkill goes, it's equally senseless. I'll give you a nice example. In Newbie 321, I killed ChannelDelibird on Night 1. In the end,

scum won the game

based on this logic (for clarification, I had figured out Stoofer was Doc at the end of Day One and pretty much posted it in thread):

Erg0's reluctance to talk about the N1 kill started my scumdar pinging again. The kill made no sense for ZindyScum. Why not take out the Doc? Why leave the Doc alive? Sure it was easy to surmise that Stoofer would have not protected CDb, but the kill didn't make any sense if you knew the Doctor's identity. Your best bet as ZindyScum would have been taking out Stoofer N1, then putting it all on CDb.

Using nightkills to draw any conclusions is an extremely dangerous business. And this wasn't even a WIFOM-decision anymore: the choices (killing doc, not killing doc) weren't equal.

[Mexal]

Using nightkills to draw any conclusions is an extremely dangerous business. And this wasn't even a WIFOM-decision anymore: the choices (killing doc, not killing doc) weren't equal.

You're right. It's an incredibly dangerous business but it's a place to start. If I look into Goldfish and decide that nothing she has said really bothers me, then problem solved. If I find things I don't like and I add the night kill to it, then it's someone to put pressure on. If I don't like her response to the pressure, then it's someone to seriously look at as scum. If I'm wrong and she turns out as town, then that leads to another place to look. I understand exactly what you're getting at and I agree with you to an extent. But there are several different ways to go about it and remember, not all of us are newbies. While a situation might happen in a newbie game, lets trust the fact that the situation might not happen when you have more experienced players. I've seen analyzation of night kills both be a positive and negative thing. I tend to trust myself so I'm not all that worried. But as I said, it's a place to get started just as pressuring Pug is another place to get started.

[Mexal]

Anyway, this is a pointless argument by both sides. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw based on my reread (which I haven't done yet) then just simply say so. I'll start looking at one avenue, you can start looking at another. Hopefully we'll arrive at scum

[Pug89]

Why didn't the scum kill Pug? He claimed healer so it doesn't make sense not to kill him unless of course they feel like they can get him lynched pretty easily today. Uh oh, WIFOM!

I think that is the case, especially combined with the fact I was one of the votes on Grek. Why waste a NK on someone you can get lynched the day?

Now. About the SK. I can clearly see one here. And pugdoc blocked it.

So my question to the claimed doc is: Who did you protect?

I protected Mirth.
I don't think it's likely there's a SK because there were no kills at all N1. It's a possibility, but it seems unlikely both kills would have been blocked N1.

[Zindaras]

Glork, I'd like to hear your thoughts about inHim's play in this game.

You're right. It's an incredibly dangerous business but it's a place to start. If I look into Goldfish and decide that nothing she has said really bothers me, then problem solved. If I find things I don't like and I add the night kill to it, then it's someone to put pressure on. If I don't like her response to the pressure, then it's someone to seriously look at as scum. If I'm wrong and she turns out as town, then that leads to another place to look. I understand exactly what you're getting at and I agree with you to an extent.

No. The place to start is Day One behaviour. Had you posted an expansive case on Goldfish, yeah, no problem. Had you raised other reasons to suspect Goldfish (like Jex's points), bueno. But you didn't. This was, as far as I can tell, your first real mention of Goldfish at all. Jex died, and you immediately saw this as a reason to suspect Goldfish, to go after her at the very least. That's a fairly classic set-up.

But there are several different ways to go about it and remember, not all of us are newbies. While a situation might happen in a newbie game, lets trust the fact that the situation might not happen when you have more experienced players. I've seen analyzation of night kills both be a positive and negative thing. I tend to trust myself so I'm not all that worried. But as I said, it's a place to get started just as pressuring Pug is another place to get started.

Mr Stoofer cleared me in that game on that logic. Completely sure I was town. And he's not a newbie.

And, besides, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who makes the argument. It is an inherently flawed argument and this doesn't change when it is made by someone else.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument by both sides. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw based on my reread (which I haven't done yet) then just simply say so. I'll start looking at one avenue, you can start looking at another. Hopefully we'll arrive at scum

For someone who talks about pressuring people, you're pretty eager to not be pressured yourself. There's also an appeal to emotion here.

[Mirth]

Firth of all, Faerielord, your post analysis really isn't particularly helpful. I especially appreciate how you admit to skipping posts too. Is there are reason for all the sarcasm sans analysis or did you just not take your happy pills this morning?

Zindaras, I stand by my position. Especially since voting someone just for the sake of a bandwagon strikes me poor play. Also, I'm pretty sure that at the moment, the only people with any suspicion toward Haschel were me and Oman, so the lynch wouldn't have changed. Also, I agree with Mexal that the nightkill is a place to start. No, it's not solid proof of anything, but it brings out information.

Pug, why in the blue blazes of hell did you protect me? I think there's a pretty decent sized concensus here that I'm at least mildly suspicious. Does it have something to do with the fact that I'm reluctant to lynch you or were there other alterior motives involved?

[Zindaras]

Zindaras, I stand by my position. Especially since voting someone just for the sake of a bandwagon strikes me poor play.

This part doesn't even make sense. Nowhere do I talk about voting someone just for the sake of bandwagoning.

Also, I'm pretty sure that at the moment, the only people with any suspicion toward Haschel were me and Oman, so the lynch wouldn't have changed.

This is a defeatist attitude. Additionally, this is completely irrelevant. How do you ever expect Haschel to die if you don't vote him? No, really, how? Do you think it is good play to only vote people who are likely to be voted by others? Because that's a pretty ridiculous position to take.

Also, I agree with Mexal that the nightkill is a place to start. No, it's not solid proof of anything, but it brings out information.

You think that the information from a complete WIFOM train of thought, based on motivations we

don't know

is more relevant than the information of 15 pages of thread ending in a three-way tie?

No, Mirth, this is

not

the place to start out.

[Mirth]

Zindaras, you mention jumping on a bandwagon to lynch. Same thing. Not deafetest realist. Note my vote now. I'm also not saying NK speculation is absolute, just that it is a place to start. See how people react to it. Not blow off discussion of it completely. No, speculating isn't definate, but not speculating might miss some things too.

Since we're on the subject, why is it that Goldfish only posts in response to people being suspicious of her? I think I asked this before. I'd like an answer.

By the way, Zindaras, what's your opinion of what Pug just said? I'd like to also have answers to that one from both Oman and Haschel due to where their votes are.

[Mexal]

You think that the information from a complete WIFOM train of thought, based on motivations we don't know is more relevant than the information of 15 pages of thread ending in a three-way tie?

No, Mirth, this is not the place to start out.

IT IS a place to start because it starts the focus. 15 pages of information is absolutely wonderful but spending an hour and half doing a full reread without any kind of focus tends to be rather pointless. I like having people to look at. I like looking through their interactions and trying to determine where they stand. To just look at everything with a broad stroke tends to lead to inadequate cases and to be honest, that's not something I plan to do. So if I want to focus my first reread on Goldfish because of the NK, so be it. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw, then say so. But you're setting me up rather quickly as scum for looking at Goldfish when I haven't even done so yet. I don't like how your argument is an attempt to completely invalidate any conclusions I draw BEFORE I draw them. Pushing this line of thinking isn't really productive to anyone unless your attempt is as I outlined above. You can call me scum, but you have no substantial basis behind it except for a meta related tell that you believe is associated with all scum.

As for pressure, please pressure me. I'm not uncomfortable with it, I love it. The problem is, your pressure consists of nothing. It's an argument based on playstyles, not based on substantial evidence of being scum. So if you want to pressure me, go through my posts and make a case. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time unless of course you're doing as I said above.

The great thing about meta tells is that they're your own tells. They're something you keep close to your breast and use it as a jumping off point to focus on a person. They are NOT used as the basis of an argument which is exactly what you're doing. So again, I ask myself, why would you bring this up instead of doing a reread? Why point this out like it's clear proof that I'm scum? And at the moment, I'm not liking the answers.

[Zindaras]

Zindaras, you mention jumping on a bandwagon to lynch. Same thing.

1) I don't like any of these votees. I'm going to vote my main suspicion instead.
2) I don't like any of these votees, but since one of them is going to die, I'm going to vote the scummiest from the set.

There is no bandwagoning in here.

Not deafetest realist. Note my vote now.

Then why not yesterday? Why didn't you make your suspicion clear? And why didn't you vote the top suspect from the three possible lynch targets? Because, from here, it looks like you didn't care who got lynched, which is a scumtell.

I'm also not saying NK speculation is absolute, just that it is a place to start. See how people react to it. Not blow off discussion of it completely. No, speculating isn't definate, but not speculating might miss some things too.

There are much better, much more productive, places to start.

By the way, Zindaras, what's your opinion of what Pug just said? I'd like to also have answers to that one from both Oman and Haschel due to where their votes are.

I'd expect him to raise that point from both sides of the alignment spectrum. I am still fairly suspicious of him, but he's not first on my list right now.

IT IS a place to start because it starts the focus. 15 pages of information is absolutely wonderful but spending an hour and half doing a full reread without any kind of focus tends to be rather pointless. I like having people to look at. I like looking through their interactions and trying to determine where they stand. To just look at everything with a broad stroke tends to lead to inadequate cases and to be honest, that's not something I plan to do. So if I want to focus my first reread on Goldfish because of the NK, so be it. If you don't agree with the conclusions I draw, then say so.

We had a three-way tie yesterday. Ties are the most information-rich lynches you can think of. If you want to see who you have to focus on, the lynch is the best place to start. inHim and Pug were, whatever else you want to say about them, responsible for Grek's death (I'd put the blame with some other players as well, through inaction, but that's not relevant right now). Is the logical place to start not with the people who killed town? Look at their motivations, at their reasons, at their behaviour? You can use this logic on other things as well: look at the wagons in the game and look at the people on them.

But, noooo, instead, we'd better take a complete and utter WIFOM argument and take that as a basis for scumhunting! Because who doesn't like iocane powder?

But you're setting me up rather quickly as scum for looking at Goldfish when I haven't even done so yet. I don't like how your argument is an attempt to completely invalidate any conclusions I draw BEFORE I draw them. Pushing this line of thinking isn't really productive to anyone unless your attempt is as I outlined above. You can call me scum, but you have no substantial basis behind it except for a meta related tell that you believe is associated with all scum.

This is a completely over-the-top reaction. Where did I say you were scum, that you deserved to be lynched? I didn't FoS you, I didn't vote you. All I did was pressure you. All I said is "I've got my eye on you". And, last time I checked, my looks didn't kill.

As for pressure, please pressure me. I'm not uncomfortable with it, I love it. The problem is, your pressure consists of nothing. It's an argument based on playstyles, not based on substantial evidence of being scum. So if you want to pressure me, go through my posts and make a case. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time unless of course you're doing as I said above.

You are using a flawed and scummy playstyle.

So again, I ask myself, why would you bring this up instead of doing a reread? Why point this out like it's clear proof that I'm scum? And at the moment, I'm not liking the answers.

Yeah, why would you bring that up instead of doing a reread?

(Oh, yes, I am aware that's not the intention of your post, but it is still a good question)

I'm not saying you're scum, again. And I'm very much amused that you say that I should do a reread when you don't want to do one yourself.

You attacked Goldfish. Your train of thought was completely ridiculous. There is no reason to think that the scum killed Jex based on her interaction with Goldy. None whatsoever.

I attacked you for using flawed logic to accuse someone of being scum.

Note the differences. I attack you for something which is relevant. Your attack relates to what would be better called a subgame. A subgame with imperfect and incomplete information.

[Mexal]

We had a three-way tie yesterday. Ties are the most information-rich lynches you can think of. If you want to see who you have to focus on, the lynch is the best place to start. inHim and Pug were, whatever else you want to say about them, responsible for Grek's death (I'd put the blame with some other players as well, through inaction, but that's not relevant right now). Is the logical place to start not with the people who killed town? Look at their motivations, at their reasons, at their behaviour? You can use this logic on other things as well: look at the wagons in the game and look at the people on them.

Then look at the trains. I'm not stopping you from finding your own scum. If you want to try to destroy my playstyle, please do this after I've posted my conclusions. Thanks.

This is a completely over-the-top reaction. Where did I say you were scum, that you deserved to be lynched? I didn't FoS you, I didn't vote you. All I did was pressure you. All I said is "I've got my eye on you". And, last time I checked, my looks didn't kill.

Over the top? It's funny that the ONLY thing you took from that paragraph was the fact that I said you were setting me up as scum. The point of that quote wasn't the fact that you were setting me up (and by setting me up doesn't necessarily mean you have to call me scum. You can make an argument then let others draw the conclusion you want them to draw. Yes, I know how to play this game too) but the fact that you were trying to invalidate my conclusions BEFORE they were drawn based on my method of deciding who I wanted to look at first. You're attacking my playstyle and at the same time keeping me from looking at Goldfish. Interesting.

You are using a flawed and scummy playstyle

That's your opinion. I tend to think differently and since you haven't played with me before, I'd appreciate if you stop trying to meta-game me.

Yeah, why would you bring that up instead of doing a reread?

(Oh, yes, I am aware that's not the intention of your post, but it is still a good question)

I'm not saying you're scum, again. And I'm very much amused that you say that I should do a reread when you don't want to do one yourself.

When you jump from one conclusion to the next, do you ever fill in the gap with evidence? Because I never stated I didn't want to do a reread. I said I don't believe in doing COMPLETE rereads of the thread. I approach this by looking at individuals, rereading their posts then rereading the posts surrounding their posts. I'm sorry if it's not your playstyle but it is unfortunately mine and you're unfortunately going to have to put up with it.

You attacked Goldfish. Your train of thought was completely ridiculous. There is no reason to think that the scum killed Jex based on her interaction with Goldy. None whatsoever.

I attacked you for using flawed logic to accuse someone of being scum.

Note the differences. I attack you for something which is relevant. Your attack relates to what would be better called a subgame. A subgame with imperfect and incomplete information.

Well, upon seeing the NK, my first thought was Goldfish. So for now, that's where I'm going to be looking. Obvious, yes, but scum tend to keep things simple. WIFOM is a great tool but I don't believe it right now.

This is my unbelievably flawed attack based on my horrible way of thinking.

You know what's funny about this? I never FOSed her. I never called her scum. I never even suggested she was scum. I simply said my first thought was Goldfish and it's where I would be looking. I then justified that thought with my line of thinking. At no point did I ever attack her. Yet you come at me like a whirlwind proclaiming I violated your scum meta-tell. At the same time, you take a single line in one of my paragraphs and attribute it to me assuming you were calling me scum. Does anyone else see the contradiction there?

When I attack someone, you will know it. To think that was an attack just shows how ridiculous your entire meta argument is because you do not know me.

[Mirth]

You're basically saying "you had your choice of bandwagons, why didn't you jump on one." Because I didn't like any of them. I missed Grek's due to an oversight (I forgot to count Pug's vote, because for some reason I thought he unvoted) and I didn't like the ones of InHim and Goldfish because InHim wasn't playing for Darwin knows how many pages, and with Goldfish, everybody keeps saying that's her playstyle. I don't think it's a town tell, but I don't think it's a scum tell either. If anything, it's a null tell and an insufficient case since she only speaks up when someone attacks her. I would like to hear more from Goldfish, and I keep asking for it, but I'm not going to vote for null tells. I also don't see the point in voting when my opinion will not alter a pending lynch, especially a couple minutes before deadline. Zindaras, you are just arguing playstyle right now, but I will throw back your own opinion at you. If you think a move is scummy, why not vote for the person who made it?

To clarify, I was asking what you thought of Pug saying he protected me.

Oh, and before I forget, I'm going to throw this out there: We likely only have one scum group. (Due to night 1's lack of a kill) That said, that group could either be Mafia or SK as we don't know what the mod is up to. I don't think we have both, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility of either.

[Mexal]

We had a three-way tie yesterday. Ties are the most information-rich lynches you can think of. If you want to see who you have to focus on, the lynch is the best place to start. inHim and Pug were, whatever else you want to say about them, responsible for Grek's death (I'd put the blame with some other players as well, through inaction, but that's not relevant right now).

I just reread this and a bunch of things popped out at me that I missed the first time.

Your first focus is on the Grek lynch. The problem with that is there was a tie and Grek was chosen. How do we know who was going to be chosen? inHim made his vote on August 16th and he's been gone from this game since August 27th. Today is September 18th. Do you really think you're going to get a ton of information off of inHim? Now you also mention Pug's vote, which makes sense to mention. You can go ahead and pressure him if you want.

Another thing that I thought of is the fact that you were attacking Mirth and I for not voting. Our actions were considered the most suspicious right? Why didn't you attack Goldfish though? So now we have you attacking Mirth and I based on reasons that you're not applying to everyone at the same time as you're trying to cast suspicion on me for even looking at Goldfish. Had you tried to invalidate my conclusions after I drew them (should they even point to scum) then that's one thing. I expect innocents to do that at times. But the fact that you're derailing me before I even start and attacking me based on an action yet ignoring the person you're derailing me from makes me think that you're protecting her.

The next logical step is why are you protecting her. I was hoping you could answer that question.

[Mexal]

Zindaras, this is why I love this game. I love catching scum. You made a huge mistake jumping on me for no reason. I had no plans of even looking at you but since you decided to try to deflect attention away from Goldfish, I started to wonder why. Doing a reread is a wonderful thing. There are quite a few interesting things in it. Ready?

Rereading the game, the first thing that catches my eye is Pug's 10. Interesting there is the lack of random vote. In Post 14, inHim votes Grek for his random vote. Rather silly, that. The hypocrisy in inHim's 22 has already been pointed out. I personally find inHim scummier there than Grek, even if Grek casted a later vote. inHim actually makes it clear that he's voting Nox for the third vote, while I find Grek's explanation for his move acceptable if deluded. Rating initial reactions (on gut, mainly):

Mirth (24): +/-
Haschel (25): +
Adam (27): -
Pug89 (29): -
Jex (30): +
camisade (32): Eh, iffy. Slightly -

I think Mirth is very much right in her debate with Grek. However, I find his explanation believable enough that I don't think it warrants a lynch (He's not right in his suggestion that 2 scum would pile on the townie to kill him, but I can believe he would think that). ben's 37 still looks horrible. I like Pug's 39. I really like Haschel's 44, if only because it expresses the same feelings as I have, reading this thread. Same feelings regarding Jex.

Adam The Amazing wrote:
But if that's the case, then they're distancing so hard...


Some people like hard distancing. I wouldn't say anything about this, especially if you don't know the people in question.

Mirth's 54 is rather weak. I don't see the point in denying distancing. Mirth doesn't find inHim's vote any more suspicion than Nox's or Jex's. However, Nox and Jex made it clear their votes were jokes (Care Bear discussion). inHim's vote was deadly serious. A third vote is also Lynch-4. Not even halfway, there. A fourth vote is Lynch-3, already a lot closer. In theory, a 3-player scumgroup could pile on at that point, making that move more dangerous. Minor defence of ben by Mirth in 63.

benhalkum wrote:
You think without a shadow of a doubt Mirth is Town, then tell me. I'll go with my fellow good guys


Another horrible post, in my opinion. Acts like a sheep, with an appeal to emotion.

We get a bit of a benwagon, in 76-78, with Haschel, Adam and Goldy expressing suspicion in Votes or FoSes.

More later.

Goldy is mentioned once in this post and it's just a minor mention of a vote.

Continuing my earlier analysis.

Grek leans heavily towards ben being scum (85). Good post by Jex (87). Ben makes a horrible post (92). Jester suggestion by Grek (93), not sure how much I like that. Ben says his vote was random (99), which I believed it was quite clearly not. Odd suggestion of breadcrumbing by Mirth (105). Nox suggests distancing between Mirth and Grek (108), and I have to say I can't see it. Odd suggestion. I still think Mirth's reaction to my question (109 and following) is odd. Reasonably good PbPA by Haschel (113). Haschel's second PbPA (121) is worse, in my opinion. His PbPA is clearly from a pro-Grek point of view, and that's not a good thing. Another strange post by ben (135). InHim wagons Grek (141). I still don't like this post. Ben defends inHim (145), in another post I find really weird. Ben's ignored most other posters, but now he suddenly has input to give. Hophop, Mirth onto inHim (146), also calling out ben. Ben quickly responds, also switching his vote (147). A very scummy post indeed. Mirth notes this (149). Another post that jumps out as scummy to me from inHim (162). Haschel (174) and Adam (175) are waiting for Apo.

More later. My personal suspicions at this moment lie with inHim and ben.

More rereading and still no Goldy.

Continuing from my earlier analysis. I find inHim's 176 suspicious. You can say what kind of vibes (town or scum) you've gotten, you can say where you got them from, there is nothing wrong with Grek's post here. I like Grek's interaction with inHim here and I think inHim's reaction is very scummy. I see some implicit defense of inHim by Mirth, don't like that. Riki's entry into the game is very solid, that takes away some of my doubts regarding ben (though I personally disagree with his analysis of ben's playstyle). I think Mirth is being overdefensive here and avoiding Riki's questions. The statistical analysis is completely irrelevant. Mirth pulls the same kind of trick here as she did when I asked her about Grek. She really avoids giving an answer. Seeing the massive amount of debate and aggression from Mirth regarding Grek, and her answer here is odd to say the least. She also completely avoids the LoE question and really doesn't help with opinions on other people. Noting responses to Riki's questions regarding Grek:

-Adam: Grek was wrong. No alignment read, unless I'm missing something. - for that. (213)
-Haschel: Misguided but Town (214). Eh, this links back to Haschel's earlier analysis on Grek/Mirth. I guess there's a small + for being consistent in his opinions.
-Jex: Scummy. I don't really like how she keeps her options open on this one, so a -. (218)
-Pug89: Scum. I think Pug is focusing too much on Grek's early play here, so a -. (223)
-Mexal: Town. Eh, the entirety of this post doesn't give me any good vibes, but not horrible ones either. So +/-. (226)

I like Mexal's 230 more, as I find myself agreeing with his points against Pug. Jex's 231 gives me good vibes. She's branching out and looking at people that weren't looked at by others. We finally get some opinions from Mirth in 237, but they all boil down to nothing, really. Some very minor things, that's it. Things I think necessitate a response from Haschel's PbPA.

Haschel Cedricson wrote:
Sixth Post: Here I have a slight disagreement on Mafia doctrine with Zindy: I'm not convinced that all first-day votes need an explanation. In fact, particularly on Day One, explaining a vote can defeat the purpose of pressuring. As for the jester, I'm not convinced we have one, but if what Zindaras says about our mod is true, then I suppose we can consider it. Briefly.


If I vote someone for pressure and am asked to explain that vote, I will say pressure. That's an explanation. It doesn't necessarily have to come with the vote, but an explanation is necesssary if asked for. That way, town can pressure, but scum can't get away with easy votes.

Quote:
Seventh Post: The thumbscrews are off of ben and are now subtlely being applied to Mirth. However, he states that Quote:
Your Grek case is nice.
even though he has been pasking Mirth about it. If he already understands the case, I'm not sure what the point of his questions were. I agree with his conclusion about Grek, but, we already knew that.


I think the underestimating was not a sufficient reason to vote Grek, or at least at that point (and I didn't even see it as much of a scumtell to begin with). So I wanted to hear more from Mirth and see if she had anything else.

Mirth's logic was good, but that doesn't mean her conclusions are necessarily good as well. After all, Mafia isn't rocket science. This isn't mathematics or game theory, with expected utility and function-maximizing.

Quote:
Nineth Post:


Complete aside, but it's ninth.

Gotta go home now, more later. My suspicion on ben has gotten a lot less, inHim's still there, Mirth, Pug and Adam are also giving me slightly scummy vibes. Haschel, Jex, Riki and Grek are giving me good vibes, to some degree.[/dice]

And finally, we have EVEN MORE rereading and guess what, still no Goldy. I've noticed that in all of your posts this entire game, you might have mentioned Goldfish maybe twice and it's in passing. Not once have you asked her a question or even so much as thrown out a random comment in her direction.

That's rather interesting isn't it? It's also interesting that your two main suspects at the time, Ben and inHim, were also Goldy's main suspects. I guess great minds think alike right?

I even went back and reread through Goldy's posts to see if there was any kind of interaction with Zindaras. There wasn't a single even mention of him. In a month and a half, they felt absolutely no need to comment on each other.

While I know this isn't conclusive proof of anything, I find it rather interesting, especially in conjunction with the fact that Zindaras tried awfully hard to keep me away from looking at Goldfish.

Vote: Zindaras

Btw, this is an attack on you in case you were unsure. Just thought you should know

[Mirth]

Mexal, I'd like to throw the following out for you to consider: while I'm not enjoying Zindaras's playing, perhaps the reason there aren't any comments on Goldfish, because, apart from early posts about Ben and Inhim, the rest of Goldfish's not very numerous posts, are in response to people being suspicious of her and rather OMGUSy in a not particularly informative way.

Now then, I really would like to hear from Haschel. On top of a question I threw out to him earlier, I'd like to ask him why he thinks I'm voting him.