Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[qax42]

/confirm

Apologies—for whatever reason I did not see the new PM!

[qax42]

@canadianbovine: I giggled at "meese".

vote: wolframnhart

because despite the fact that I love Whedon, I'm bitter that Sarah Connor Chronicles got canceled over Dollhouse.

[qax42]

Quite the sudden influx of posts!

Re the canadianbovine mishap:
I would have thought this is an eager, albeit slightly stupid, townie, but looking at how long he's been here I'm not too sure. I can see the argument of nervous scum caught in his own words.

Re the so-called OMGUS vote:
Yeah, that's a non-issue. I agree with Conspicuous_other; OMGUS is irrelevant if there was a legitimate claim to vote.

unvote

my random, since we seem to be done with that.

[qax42]

Dear lord, this game is moving quickly, isn't it?

@nohandedtyper:
(#129, #137) I think every post contributes to the game and moves it forward. Only scum don't want a discussion to move forward, fruitless or not.

@DeathRowKitty:
(#143) I completely agree. L-2 at this point in the game is not a big deal. It would be worth to lose a townie to quick lynch because we'd have quite a credible scum candidate to send to the gallows D2. Moreover, at least with my anecdotal evidence, D1 L-2 fears are always unfounded—nothing ever comes from them.

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—gut feeling? Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence only one of them can be town, but it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

[qax42]

@Town: This post is written as I catch up, and so is addressed to people pretty much in chronological order.

@My Milked Eek, #204:

Also, post more.

I'm going to post as and when I please, thank you. My lifestyle isn't going to change depending on the pace of everyone else's posting.

Quite the daring statement with "only this evidence".

I disagree. All that means is that I didn't have enough evidence to press further.

@canadianbovine:

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

You don't understand the fuss because that's not at all what they are doing.

i didnt say they were using the too townie argument.

That's sure what it looked like.

To me your pretty town, keeping good questioning on everyone, staying with the town.

You have a very, very strange metric for what constitutes townie play. Do you not account for the fact that scum are trying to pose as townies and are making every effort to look like they are scum hunting?

@Reckoner, #214:

I have my reasons.

Share with the class, then.

@ChannelDelibird, #215:

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post. FoS: Reckoner

While I'm not pleased with his lack of explanation, I don't think that kind of post is nearly as scummy as people jump to. I've played a reasonable amount of mafia, and read a fair bit as well, and this happens as often with townies as it does with scum.

@Reckoner, #225:

Oh, and FoS Milked Eek for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

At the time, yes. Although your justification for the post-as-a-trap hits looks a little weak. I wouldn't have been so quick to lay it out as the ploy it was. Moreover, if you were going to create a legitimate case against wolframnhart, then why bother pointing out that it was a trap in the first place? You could have just not said anything, waited, gotten your reaction, and presented your case.

I also don't think that he was pushing for a bandwagon—that seems a little presumptuous.

@DeathRowKitty, #228:

Did you really expect to post that and have no one vote you???

I would have, yes. There's very little to go on in that post—nothing worth a vote, in my opinion.

Even CDB, who was voting for wolframnhart FoSed you.

An FoS is far, far different from a vote. Every single person here can FoS the hell out of Reckoner, and he wouldn't get a hangnail. And if you were suspicious of him, it was a much better way to point that out than to vote him.

I won't FoS you because you've "explained" your post and I won't vote you because that post was so much less intelligent than your others it almost had to be what you say it was.

Interesting. That's a very unique take on reading someone—I have no read on this.

The only plausible reason I can think of for a townie to withhold reasoning is if he/she's a cop or something similar and got information from that. Since we haven't had a night yet and you couldn't have gotten any information like that, there's no reason to withhold your reasoning. Of course someone's going to think you're suspicious!

How can you be sure he isn't a power-role? As far as I can tell, there is nothing saying the cop, if there is one, wasn't allowed N0 check? I'm reasonably new to the site (not the game), but there's nothing I've seen that states the moderator needs to explain every part of the flavor of the game upfront.

@Conspicuous_other, #229:

unvote, vote:Wickedestjr for trying to defend reckoner not giving a reason for his vote.

That

is the weakest vote in this game so far.

@lobstermania:

It is very opportunistic to vote someone without reasoning when they are under heat.

I disagree. I wouldn't have done it like Reckoner did, but I don't think that it is close to beyond the realm of possibilities that there can be valid justification for doing that.

To me, withholding evidence and backing yourself up by saying "well, it's already been posted," sounds like you jumped on a wagon and are now backtracking to find the case against Wolf.

Hmm, maybe, yes.

You can't create a scummy post and not expect people to call you out on it. Your justification that it was actually a fake vote to catch scum is bogus. Why is your vote still on wolf if you've blown the cover on your 20/20 expose?

I prefer this argument. Still not worth a vote, in my opinion.

@canadianbovine, #233:

what about qax?

I'm here. I try to post once a day, and granted, I did miss two days since this game started, but my posting frequency is likely not going to change. Moreover, given the frequency at which others in this game are posting makes catching up several pages a day take much longer.

@My Milked Eek, #238:

That seemed to have appeared while I was previewing this post.

This is a much better reasoned argument that your voting post. I should point out, that, abstractly, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with little-to-no reason, wait, reason.

@Town:

I don't have a candidate worth voting right now. I don't like canadianbovine, for being a bit buddy-buddy towards ChannelDelibird, and DeathRowKitty has made some sweeping claims that I don't like, but I'm going to wait. Conspicuous_other's last vote and playstyle in general doesn't sit well with me.

Oh, @ChannelDelibird, I completely disagree that "[everyone] should pretty much be voting at all times on Day 1", as you said. I think you and I take different interpretations to the sentence, "a townie's vote is her most powerful tool".

[qax42]

@My Milked Eek, #242:

That is true, however, by joining a game, you made a dedication. I'm not saying you should go mental and copy bovine's activity, but a bit more than 4 posts in 10 pages (or 5-6 days) isn't an insane request.

As I said, I try to post once a day for the most part. That's usually the time I get. Today I had more time, and so I posted twice. Admittedly, I missed two days since this game has started, but that's how it is.

And as for dedication—I haven't avoided any questions, have said everything I want to say, and haven't actively lurked. There's obviously only my word on that, but I can't see why you would imagine I've been lurking when there hasn't been the slightest bit of suspicion on me yet.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth making a bigger deal over this unless you really want to go down that road.

The bolded is what I meant by "daring statement".

Right, but I think I make that fairly clear, even in the part you quoted. My emphasis:

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—

gut feeling?

Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence only one of them can be town, but

it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

I really think this is just miscommunication—I can't think of how better to explain this without tone and inflection.

I don't see similarities between the two posts at all, except for the fact that we both voted. I provided reasons to vote, while reckoner said he has reasons but wasn't posting them, which turned out to be a trap.

Again, I quote myself (emphasis mine):

I should point out, that,

abstractly

, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with

little

-to-no reason

, wait, reason.

If it helps you, that statement was more in terms of interest and play-style. I didn't—in specifically the respect of comparing you to Reckoner in how you voted—make or reach any conclusions.

This is completely unrelated, but of curiosity—and I don't mean to offend you if it seems like that—are you a native English speaker? Your location states Belgium, and assuming that you are correct, you write excellent English for a Belgian native. Or is that you just happen to live there?

[qax42]

Oh, missed this.

@canadianbovine, #233: If you're trying to gauge a majority sentiment, then I'm with My Milked Eek; I don't think it's a big deal considering there's nothing I want to specifically ask of you right now. And as I can't see any indication of a deadline looming, it should be fine. Hopefully you're back before the end of the day to provide some insight over what you'll have missed.

Enjoy your break!

[qax42]

@My Milked Eek

, #245:

Re: the misinterpretations; I'm glad they're cleared up now.

As for the language thing, well, I'm very impressed—good for you! I'm very interested in multilingualism. I fluently speak English, French and Hindi, as well as a handful of uncommon Indian languages and dialects, have sub-conversational proficiency at Arabic and am in the process of learning Mandarin, but at my best, potentially only my Hindi is as good as your English is.

@Town

: Sorry for that tangent!

@Wickedestjr

, #246:

I really, really liked this post. It helps that I agree with you quite strongly (as I have previously stated) about the Reckoner and the ensuing fallout in certain respects, but this is very good scum-hunting. Townie points for you.

@DeathRowKitty

, #250:

You say:

You might not be new to the game, but I am.

But then also:

"I have my reasons" is

never

a satisfactory reason to vote for someone, even more so if you really do have reasons to share.

That's quite a statement from someone who claims to be new to the game. You can

surely

say—given your very limited experience—that it is beyond the realm of belief that this situation could ever be legitimate?

Now, let me add that I'm not happy (again, this is something I've stated) with Reckoner's follow-up to this—I take issue with holes in people's arguments, or arguments they made before he made his point.

Even if he is a cop with an N0 check, it wouldn't be in his best interest to call attention to himself with a post like that.

Mistake? I don't know. I wasn't implying anything, rather, was trying to present a hypothetical situation to you.

@canadianbovine

:

Day 1 power role discussion? Fishing out a cop?

unvote, vote: qax

Seriously? If this was done several pages earlier, I would have thought that you didn't realize we were out of the random voting stage. I'm torn between whether this or Conspicuous_other's vote on #229 is more ridiculous.

If he is cop, then he's already outed himself, and rather stupidly. Moreover, the power-role discussion was started by DeathRowKitty, and I was merely pointing out a flaw in logic.

@Reckoner

, #254:

I don't really know what I need to respond to after that re-read. All the constant quoting and whatnot confused me more than helped. If someone could lay out what they want me to respond to, I will.

I don't think it's that hard to follow. You basically have to pick out your name, and read around it for context and see if a question was asked. If it helps, I would like you to respond to my #240 with regards to your #225.

@Town

:

I've decided to start underlining the person (or group) that I am addressing—I figure making myself clearer means (a) your life is easier and (b) that it reduces the chances of someone misunderstanding me or getting confused. I unfortunately can't retroactively do this, but I'll try to keep it up for the rest of this game. Let me know if this is an issue.

[qax42]

@Conspicuous_other

, #258

This post seems kinda...defensive, seeing as how MME's concern about your lurking is completely legitimate.

OK. I've addressed this issue enough.

Could you clarify what's townie play in your opinion?

No.

That's the point, is that he voted WRH and didn't give the town any idea as to why.

I'm not sure who WRH is, but I'll take a gander at a guess. Ironically enough, Reckoner summarizes my response to this quite well:

I was looking at people who saw it fit to jump on the chance to

vote

and not just

inquire

.

This part confuses me. At first it sounds like you're saying that FOS's mean nothing (which is true, of course), then it sounds like you're saying that they're a better way to express suspicion than voting.

Yes, an FoS means nothing. An FoS was a better way to point out suspicion than to vote him precisely for the reason that it not a vote-worthy post in my opinion.

qax brought up the idea of a N0 cop.

I did. I think lobstermania meant that DeathRowKitty brought up the idea of a cop to begin with, at least that's what I imagined.

@lobstermania

, please confirm this if you can. I don't want to speak for you.

Kitty was totally right in saying that. The fact that he's new is irrelevant.

The difference between my argument and your (and others' arguments) is that I am actually trying to make a case, whereas you are all adamant about this without any backing up. Theory discussion is moot if you don't bother making a case. It is, in my opinion, not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be a situation where a player has pro-town reasons to hide his voting intentions. That is it.

The fact that he is new is

completely

relevant. There is a lot I learned about player interactions that I had previously assumed didn't occur by only playing Mafia—and I'm unabashedly saying I'm an intelligent guy (not that DeathRowKitty isn't).

@DeathRowKitty

:

Even besides this, voting someone without giving a reason gives the impression of voting with no reason (or hides someone voting with no reason), something very clearly anti-town. I do believe I can say with certainty there's no good reason to make a post like that.

As I've said in this post, this is theory discussion. That's your opinion, and I've clearly stated mine. Thank you for at least attempting to provide a reason behind yours.

To make it clear, I wasn't implying anything about your intelligence.

Also, thanks for those updated vote-counts. It's handy.

Only one left not voting. I'm not asking you to vote qax, but what do you think of what's been going on? It seems from your posts today you've been looking through the thread. Anything you see that really isn't sitting well with you?

Yes, I noticed too on the vote-count.

I'm very suspicious of Conspicuous_other, canadianbovine. I think I've fairly clearly mentioned why, but feel free for a clarification. I'm not sure if both are scum yet—their interactions don't scream scum pair, but it might be good distancing.

On the other hand, Reckoner's response is unhelpful, and doesn't answer anyone's questions. I agree with the general sentiment that he seems to be dodging everyone's questions. I—as well as others—have gone as far as pointing out which post the questions were in or what the questions were.

This is anti-town behavior. I would vote, but I don't want to risk a hammer before I heard the answer. So,

@Reckoner

: Last chance. Respond to the very clear questions towards you.

[qax42]

@ChannelDelibird

:

What? Really? This sounds like evasion in the hope that someone might rephrase their question into something that's easier to weasel out of. Bad vibes.

Absolutely, yes.

Just to be clear, because I'm sure someone would have called me a hypocrite, I am not in any way suggesting wolfram is lurking or any scummier for not having commented yet. I am simply interested in what he says on the matter when he next posts.

From my part, that assumption didn't occur. I agree, by the way, I want to hear his take. CoCo too, actually.

@DeathRowKitty

:

Maybe neither of us should have posted what we did, but neither post seems unreasonable to me.

Speak for yourself—I'm perfectly happy having posted that. It wasn't unreasonable though, you are right about that.

Do you have any specific reason in mind? So far all you've said is that it's a possibility. Regardless, don't tell us what that reason is or we could end up in another grey area, but can I have a yes or a no on that?

Yes, I do. And you are absolutely right to not ask me to spell it/them out.

He hasn't posted at all in two days (in this game or the other game he's playing).

Thanks for the meta lookup, I was just about to do the same. He's due a prod tomorrow.

That was supposed to be a not-too-obvious way of saying, "My bad, let's just say he isn't a cop and drop it."

Ah. That's a bit clearer. So we drop it then!

@lobstermania

, #275:

I didn't read back far enough, my bad.

No worries.

@wolframnhart

,

@CoCo

: Seeing as how you two are—I think—the only ones who haven't really commented on Reckoner, myself and the others are eager to hear your thoughts on the situation.

[qax42]

@Reckoner

, #280:

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You

blatantly

avoided my questions, and that too after

two

prods to do so. I

underline

your name, point you to a specific post. Look for the question marks, god damn it—they look like this: "?". The worse part is, given your inability to read normal, organized sentences in English, I stopped bothering for responses in general to my comments towards you or about your posts, and was hoping for even a single answer to the questions.

I'd recommend a quick unvoting from someone. Because if I had to guess, I'd say this wagon on me is town-laden, meaning scum can swoop in for the kill any moment.

Haha.

vote: xRECKONERx

Watch out, townies, I'm scum because Reckoner said so.

[qax42]

Unvote

.

I have to consider the claim in a re-read.

[qax42]

@ChannelDelibird

, #300:

Mafia Hitman would be an incredibly risky D1 claim for the scum.

It would, but he's out of options at this point. Everything he writes reeks of desperation.

No reason to lynch a claimed vig day 1.

Unless he's lying. No way to know unless someone confirms him, though. I guess I very apprehensively might agree.

Can we all lynch wolfram now? Thanks.

Re-read needed to confirm that. I'm not about to let Reckoner go that easily, though.

@Town

: I almost want to lynch him for being such an anti-town player. Town or not, he's by far the scummiest player in the game, and a scummy townie is dead weight to the town.

I see a few possibilities about this claim:
(a) It's bullshit and he's scum.
(b) It's bullshit and he's town.
(c) It's true.

(a) is a potential because he is scum and he is worried. Furthermore, the flavor dictates that he shouldn't have a gun at all.
(b) is a potential situation because he is completely out of options and is fake-claiming to try get unvotes.
(c) is a potential because it's a fairly specific claim with respect to the terminology. The Mod also might be playing mind games with us with the flavor.

As it stands, I think (a) is most likely, and (b) is least likely.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but "Mafia Hitman" isn't the common term over mafia vigilante on this site, right?

[qax42]

@ChannelDelibird

, #302:

Mafia Hitman, according to mikeburnfire's flash site, is a mafia guy whose kills cannot be stopped by doc protection or a roleblock.

That strengthens my case for his claim being false then, if it is a well-known term.

@My Milked Eek

, #304:

For the most part, I agree with your sentiments in this post.

qax, your answers are a bit too general and not enough nuance can be made in them. There is even some (not to say a lot of) bias in the formulation of them, which shows your stance a lot more.

I don't know what part of my post you are talking before. "not enough nuance can be made in them" also doesn't really make sense to me. What stance exactly are you talking about?

@DeathRowKitty

:

Unvote

@qax
Clearly you're annoyed (and understandably so), but especially with wolf and CoCo relatively inactive as of late, I'm not sure how safe L-1 is.

FoS qax42

Beyond annoyed, actually. Now, thankfully, I don't have to beg to get a response to something I've asked for several times already, because I have nothing left to hear from him. But that's not the point. Only four posts later you do this:

Vote: xRECKONERx

For anyone who hasn't been keeping up, that's

L-1

While I couldn't give a crap about a FoS, what concerns me here is your voting. You unvote, accuse me of putting Reckoner at L-1, and then immediately do the same. His post in between this did nothing to change my view of him—he was regurgitating the same thing over and over again.

Also, L-1 is quite similar to L-2 at this point in the game. I'd trade Reckoner for quick-hammering scum in a heartbeat.

Please explain.

@Town

:

Basically, when everyone handed over their guns, I remained loyal to the mafia but didn't feel as comfortable handing my gun over like everyone else. My gun still had five bullets left over in it from the last job. So it says I'm going to deal with the anti-mafia agents the same way I deal with people in my normal job: by hunting them down.

I don't know what to think of this. It's very...

convenient

. I'd like to hear, in particular,

@ChannelDelibird

,

@nohandedtyper

and

@lobstermania

's views on this.

@Coco

: Care to make a contribution?

I also want

@canadianbovine

to respond to my comments on his outrageous voting.

[qax42]

Oh, there's a lot more here that I need to respond to/comment on that I have time for right now. Bear with me, I'll get to this later today.

[qax42]

@Town

: Sorry about this, but

I'm going to be V/LA till Tuesday at the earliest

.

I have a lot to respond to and more to comment on, but it would take too long to write the post, and I only have time right to post V/LA notices in the games I am active in.

Just to put my vote on someone suspicious to me, I'll make time for:

Vote: canadianbovine

for dodging my questions and playing a very shady game. He's not really participated tremendously since the game stopped focusing on him. There's more that I've mentioned in my earlier posts, but I apologize that this is all I have time for.

[qax42]

@Town

:

Hello.

Just logged in for the first time. Sorry, I just moved to another country and started work, and barely get any free time. Today isn't much better, just logged on to say that I haven't bailed. I'll post as soon as I can—tomorrow, maybe?—but if you guys want to get a more active replacement for me I'll obviously understand.

[qax42]

Also:

(Thanks to the search feature of this site and looking for posts addressed to me)

@nohandedtyper

: I'm

extremely

insulted that you would question my integrity—

especially

when I've posted it across the site.

[qax42]

@Mod: Sorry, but I'm going to need a replacement.

Sorry guys. I don't have the time for this. I just saw someone else wanted a replacement as well, which sucks, but it's Sunday, my only free time during the week, and I've got other commitments aside from this game that I just can't get out of now. This is the first time I've logged on since my last post.

My apologies to whoever takes my spot—I've left 7 or 8 pages worth of empty catch-up to do.

Good luck!