Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[schismatized]

oh shit I forgot about this game.

[YagamiLight]

I apologize for my absence. I'm going to do a quick reread, and cast my vote.

[zu_Faul]

If we're going down this track, Panzer is my preference. The main reason I wasn't already voting him was that it looked like he was being replaced, but if that's not happening then I have no problem lynching him.

That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone.

[Toaster Strudel]

Uber-scummy all day yesterday, culminating in an uber-suspicious deadline vote.

vote: hasdagas

[JordanA24]

I apologize for my absence, my Internet's been very unreliable recently, and schoolwork became a mountain. Hopefully I'll be able to get back on top of Mafia soon.

Peers' death was certainly an interesting revelation, if ABR hadn't claimed Mason at the start of the day, I'd be pretty suspicious of him for his continued pushing on Peers to claim his target, which would achieve nothing for the town, barring some very stupid scum/SK/Vig, and give the scum an advantage by telling them who the Doc thinks is town and maybe a power-role.

TS, don't you want to lynch Quagmire anymore? If no, why not?

It seems that the players have decided that Quagmire is essential to the game, and his contribution is so invaluable that the game might just fall apart if we lynch him, and we absolutely need him at end game. I decided that I will not say another word about Quagmire.

You all want to keep him forever, you can have him.

So? You don't have to simply go along with the town's opinions, you'd be pretty scummy if you did all the time. I thought you had a pretty good case on Quag, and you shouldn't abandon it simply because the rest of the town doesn't agree with you.

Right, it doesn't matter because he already had more votes than Quagmire and we have no way of knowing whether or not enough people would have unvoted kscope in time for us to lynch Quag or anyone else.
Also, just because I disagree with you about Quagmire's actions doesn't mean I'm "trying to save him." I would have been perfectly ok with a quag lynch if that was the final decision, but I was happier with a kscope lynch. Yes, I should have counted the votes, but I didn't.
My question isn't a red herring, it's a rhetorical question. I would like to know the answer to it.

But the important thing is though that KScope turned out to be not just a townie, but a power-role, so asking questions related to if he turned out to be scum is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is what actually happened, people can "What if" all they like, it won't change what the actual situation is, and arguments that are based on a "What if" have a very shaky base and almost certainly craplogic.

FOS: hasd

So why are people not voting for bookitty?

Not changed much from Day 1 then, still unhelpful and just pushing cases without commenting on anything else that is happening.

TS, what happens if Quag IS town? What will your thoughts be?

I can answer this.

She will blame me -- I'm the one who fucked everything up, it's my fault that I didn't turn up scum, and I'm the dumbass.

And she'd be right.

Look, you want to be helpful to the town, try posting something useful once in a while, rather than your risiculously tunnel-visioned "Why aren't you guys voting [insert name here]" after building what is usually a pretty questionable case against that person. If you do that, then we might start to believe you to be town, if you can't be arsed with Mafia so much you can't do that, then get yourself replaced please.

Thank you.

Why am I being voted?

Because you don't contribute

anything

perhaps, bar an ill-timed K-Scope vote.

Replace me, I have zero interest in catching up and i'm not a fan of 50 page days

Vote: Panzer

This is such obvious scum running away from votes it's not funny. Seriously. Who says Panzer has to read all 50 pages to post something?

This is not happening at all. Quit skewing the facts. Since the day has started you've switched your vote around 5 times.

WHOA!!! Around 5 times? TWICE.

You aren't even attempting to make a case, except on Quag, and you then switched your vote two posts later.

Yeah, and who is making cases right now? Panzer who just flaked? ABR who decided for unfathomable reasons that Erg0 is scum??? Zu_faul, who is, in my book, potential scum and is voting for me anyway? Who? Show me some good cases. ABR who is asking OTHER FREAKIN PEOPLE to make his cases??????? My case on Quag is a total waste of time. I wasted 55 pages on Day 1, can you imagine my frustration? Nobody wants to lynch anyone.

I also am dissapointed you are ignoring all attempts to start discussion to chide the town for something they haven't even done yet.

Right, I'm not discussing enough? I haven't posted enough in this game??? Something the town hasn't done yet??? Were you there yesterday??? Argh!

Oh please yes, put me out of my misery. Let me help you.

vote: TS

Vote Count:

4: TS

(Panzerjager, Zu_Faul, IH, ABR, BM)

2: Panzerjager

(Setael, Toaster Strudel)

1: Sir Tornado

(JordanA24)

1: Bookitty

(Quagmire)

Not Voting:

Sir Tornado, Bookitty, hasdgfas, YagamiLight, Erg0, schismatized

I think TS should be on 5 votes. Also, Jordan, why are you not voting for TS atm?

BM

Because TS is obvtown IMO, I find her to be mostly logical and going after the players I find to be scum most of the time. I think she is being persecuted atm for her playstyle, and because of her frustration. The latter potentially by scum out to get an easy lynch.

unvote, vote: erg0

Why?

Players who have posted in the last week (9): zu_Faul, Xylthixlm, Bookitty, Setael, hasdgfas, vollkan, Battle Mage, Erg0, Toaster Strudel
Players who haven't posted in the last week (6): Sir Tornado, JordanA24, IH, YagamiLight, Panzerjager, schizmatized

I don't really see anything we can do other than start lynching lurkers. Any suggestions on who should go first?

Lynching Lurkers=

BAD!

. I cannot think of a more opportunistic vote than a vote on somebody who's lurking because of lurking. That lurker will not be able to defend himself until he comes back, which may be too late, that lurker may not come back at all, putting the replacement (if there is one) under great pressure when they arrive, and the lurker might not even have a chance to claim if he is a power-role.

I don't really see anything we can do other than start lynching lurkers. Any suggestions on who should go first?

vote: JordanA24

This one's not a purely lurker lynch. He's scum. I would also vote Panzer, but I prefer Jordan.

Why am I scum?

I still think Panzer is a good lynch, but since he hasn't been replaced yet, I'll

Unvote

to give the replacement a chance.

[Battle Mage]

Not sure what to make of the buddying up between TS and Jordan. 0.o

BM

[hasdgfas]

oh shit I forgot about this game.

Can you contribute something rather than mindless bandwagoning and saying that you forgot about this game?

[Shanba]

MelodyMan23 replaces Panzerjager

[MelodyMan23]

Just posting to let you guys know I'm here. I've got some reading to do, vote coming soon.

[Toaster Strudel]

oh shit I forgot about this game.

Can you contribute something rather than mindless bandwagoning and saying that you forgot about this game?

Correction. He's not even contributing mindless bandwagoning.

[Erg0]

If we're going down this track, Panzer is my preference. The main reason I wasn't already voting him was that it looked like he was being replaced, but if that's not happening then I have no problem lynching him.

That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone.

Um, that was my reason for

not

voting him. Am I missing the point here?

[hasdgfas]

oh shit I forgot about this game.

Can you contribute something rather than mindless bandwagoning and saying that you forgot about this game?

Correction. He's not even contributing mindless bandwagoning.

he did during parts of day 1.

[Xylthixlm]

Peers' death was certainly an interesting revelation, if ABR hadn't claimed Mason at the start of the day, I'd be pretty suspicious of him for his continued pushing on Peers to claim his target, which would achieve nothing for the town, barring some very stupid scum/SK/Vig, and give the scum an advantage by telling them who the Doc thinks is town and maybe a power-role.

Normally, knowing who thinks who is town is

good

. Why shouldn't the doc disclose targets? I'm really curious, because my experience in IRC games has been that the town is helped by outed power roles (of any sort) claiming their targets.

Lynching Lurkers=

BAD!

. I cannot think of a more opportunistic vote than a vote on somebody who's lurking because of lurking. That lurker will not be able to defend himself until he comes back, which may be too late, that lurker may not come back at all, putting the replacement (if there is one) under great pressure when they arrive, and the lurker might not even have a chance to claim if he is a power-role.

This seems odd. Yes, players who have totally abandoned the game should be replaced - but what about people who are still playing but contributing as little as possible? What is your strategy to prevent scum from lurking their way through the game?

[vollkan]

PBPA of Jordan

0: Wake up vote ABR
1: Joins Peers BW. No explanation or questions given
2: FoSes TS for asssuming randomness
3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)
4: 5 days later, affirms support for Peers vote. Suggests Panzer/Peers link. Thinks MoS is being over-defensive (an accusation I loathe)
5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum
6: FoSes schism for dodging arguments. Actually, I don't think schism did dodge anything because the debate he had with Yos ended in a theory disagreement. So, it was sensible of schism to do an "agree to disagree". Votes MoS and demands participation.
7: Notes that he was the first to raise the bad scum thing
8: Calls out MoS for an OMGUS
9: Thinks Peers is #2 scum to MoS
10: Rejects Peers' lurker vote for himself because Jordan has now made 10 posts.
11: MoS accuses Jordan of voting him to latch on to the building anti-MoS sentiment. Jordan demands proof.
12: Quotes his anti-MoS posts. Gives sik a mega-FoS for asking to get the Peers lynch over with
13: Questions for MoS
14: Pushes ABR for defending MoS
15: Wonders why people think MoS is jester
16: Conjecture about what MoS might be
17: Explains his Peers vote was to pressure (worth remembering that Jordan supplied no questions with his vote)
18: Asks if Quag is ever going to read his role
19: Doesn't like the Quag lynch, and is keeping his vote on MoS
20: Prefers MoS
21: Tries to persuade Quag to read his PM
22: Cautions that Quag is at L-1
23: "Not convinced Quag is scum. "
24: Queries MoS for saying he isn't policy lynching anyone
25: Asks if ABR just confessed
26: Doesn't like zu dodging questions ( I agree). FoSes hasd for declaring to go along with consensus (I agree). Votes hasd.
27: QFTs BM calling Quag a fucktard who should be the one to leave the site, after Quag was awful to TS. (Hehe, this is even made more amusing given what's Quagmire's temp-ban)
28: Votes Quag for being a distraction and not helping. I really don't like the fact that jordan now moves to a Quag wagon when he had good arguments against hasdf - particularly given his previous criticism of the Quag wagon.,
29: Keeps pushing against Quag. Agrees with Book about MOS spinning Quag.
30: Questions Quag. Says he had hoped that Quag would not distract the entire game.
31: Sets about explaining the weird shift in his behaviour to Quag. He suggests Quag is scum with MOS. He questions Quag for saying that the discussion about his role is pointless, wondering whether he would be saying that about someone else. This is dodgy, since the reason Quag did not want questions on the subject was, obviously, that it was purely a playstyle point - so this questioning from Jordan just seems futile to me. Says Quag is showing desperation because he called the wagon on him stupid and said TS is scum. It looks like frustration, but that isn't of itself a scumtell. Also rejects Quag saying that his actions weren't scummy because scum don't want attention on the bases that 1) Town don't like attention either (good, so it's a nulltell at most) and 2) That Quag didn't know his role (in which case, it can't be scummy). Rightly swipes at Quag for his refusal to answer things.
32: IGMEOYs ABR for what looks like an opportunistic vote on Peers (I agree). Questions MoS about policy lynches. Upgrades ABR to FOS for voting Kscope without explanation despite going on LA. Calls for Quag's lynch
33: D2 - HUGE-FOSes Quagmire, and FoSes hasd and panzer for their dodgy votes. Votes ST for having cast the 7th Scope vote in only his second in-game post.
34: Explains acronym
35: "That makes sense"
36: Wants Quag to be helpful (Ha! Now that's wishful thinking). Votes Panzer for his replacement request looking like scum giving up and running from votes. Thinks TS is obvtown since she is logical and going after scummy players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about

60%

.

[JordanA24]

Peers' death was certainly an interesting revelation, if ABR hadn't claimed Mason at the start of the day, I'd be pretty suspicious of him for his continued pushing on Peers to claim his target, which would achieve nothing for the town, barring some very stupid scum/SK/Vig, and give the scum an advantage by telling them who the Doc thinks is town and maybe a power-role.

Normally, knowing who thinks who is town is

good

. Why shouldn't the doc disclose targets? I'm really curious, because my experience in IRC games has been that the town is helped by outed power roles (of any sort) claiming their targets.

But the flipside to this is that the scum knows the Doc's preferred target is, and may be able to work with that to plan their NK's better, and since the Doc aims to protect power-role's, they know who the doc thinks is a power-role. If they know this, they could out-WIFOM the doc to kill them.

Lynching Lurkers=

BAD!

. I cannot think of a more opportunistic vote than a vote on somebody who's lurking because of lurking. That lurker will not be able to defend himself until he comes back, which may be too late, that lurker may not come back at all, putting the replacement (if there is one) under great pressure when they arrive, and the lurker might not even have a chance to claim if he is a power-role.

This seems odd. Yes, players who have totally abandoned the game should be replaced - but what about people who are still playing but contributing as little as possible? What is your strategy to prevent scum from lurking their way through the game?

Oh sorry, misunderstanding there, I thought you meant abandoney lurkers.

[zu_Faul]

If we're going down this track, Panzer is my preference. The main reason I wasn't already voting him was that it looked like he was being replaced, but if that's not happening then I have no problem lynching him.

That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone.

Um, that was my reason for

not

voting him. Am I missing the point here?

Sorry. Reading is tech.

[zu_Faul]

Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about 60%.

60% scum I assume. Then why are you not voting for him?

Because TS is obvtown IMO, I find her to be mostly logical

You must be reading a different game than I do. Please redirect me to the game where TS is logical.

[JordanA24]

Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about 60%.

60% scum I assume. Then why are you not voting for him?

Because someone else is scummier maybe?

Because TS is obvtown IMO, I find her to be mostly logical

You must be reading a different game than I do. Please redirect me to the game where TS is logical.

Most of her posts are, I haven't got the time at the moment to point out specific ones, but if you want me to, I will probably tomorrow.

[JordanA24]

Messes up tags in last post, sorry.

[Erg0]

From memory, vollkan's method is that every player starts at 50% (neutral), and moves up or down depending on towniness or scumminess. 60% is slightly scummy, I think.

[vollkan]

Erg0 is correct.

Each player starts at 50% which is neutral. Then I move them up or down depending. 60% is slightly scummy. I usually do not vote until someone tips 70%.

[Xylthixlm]

I just use estimated scum probabilities, and usually vote the person with the highest. Starting at 50% seems weird - is it just a more numerical way of expressing your subjective impressions?

[vollkan]

I use it for a few reasons:
1) I dislike "innocent until proven guilty" and I loathe "guilty until proven innocent". My approach is "neutral until proven either way" which fits well with starting people at a midway point.
2) It lets me sequence players more clearly. Rather than: "I find X more suspect than Y who is more suspect than Z" the number system helps make the relative differences clearer.
3) It lets me dodge accusations of "You're being non-committal" because I have a clear position on each player (at least, when I do complete analyses of everybody - which I have not done this game as of yet)
4) It makes it easy for me to check back and ensure I keep consistent and don't make arbitrary changes.

So, it's partly for clarity and partly for self-defense.

And, so that I am absolutely clear, it is purely subjective.

[schismatized]

vote: hasd

[zu_Faul]

Erg0 is correct.

Each player starts at 50% which is neutral. Then I move them up or down depending. 60% is slightly scummy. I usually do not vote until someone tips 70%.

OK. Slightly weird to me, but I get it.