268: Bugsy Malone Mafia - Game over. Mod learns lesson

[MeMe]

Got it.

[MeMe]

vote: broomhead

Welcome to MafiaScum!

[MeMe]

What makes you think that 1) you know why chaotic's doing what he's doing and 2) he's succeeeded?

[MeMe]

unvote: broomhead
vote: Pariah

[MeMe]

I unvoted you because of your "Correction: 1 kicked the buckt, so it is now 6 to lynch" comment.

Could

be a clever scum ploy to fake forgetting one's dead...but you're not coming off as someone who's weighing his words.

I voted Pariah based on a quick re-read. In his three posts (excluding the pre-game one) it looks like he's encouraging suspicion broadly without committing to a favorite...as though he'll be ready to join any bandwagon without being the leader (not the first vote)

or

a follower (already expressed suspicion).

Enough for a vote.

[MeMe]

I voted Pariah based on a quick re-read. In his three posts (excluding the pre-game one) it looks like he's encouraging suspicion broadly without committing to a favorite...as though he'll be ready to join any bandwagon without being the leader (not the first vote) or a follower (already expressed suspicion).

Enough for a vote.

Really? I agree he could post more, but what he has said looks reasonable to me.

I didn't say it doesn't look

reasonable

. I said it looks...well read my quote. And, as I said, it's enough for a vote.

I do find your decision to provide a counter-point on Pariah's behalf interesting, Adele -- especially since you'd like him to post more. You're voting Tamuz on little -- "not incredibly scummy" (your words) but seem to have a problem with me doing the same.

[MeMe]

First, I like to consider stuff carefully and look at both sides of an issue. I still don't fully understand why you're voting Pariah, to tell the truth. Is it for not posting enough (seems an overreaction) or for what he posted (I think his posts weren't amazing, but raised valid points)?

I explained my vote for him and it has nothing to do with not posting enough, which is a point YOU raised against him, not me.

And I'm not voting "Tamuz on little" and that would've been clear to anyone if, instead of just quoting three words of mine, you'd quoted the full line:

And so I think you're the most suspicious guy on the block. Not incredibly scummy, but sufficiently for me to vote.

Adele, your full quote is there for everyone to see -- but it was the three words that were pertinent to my point. You called it "not incredibly scummy" which is, in my opinion, the same as saying your points aren't strong, i.e.: voting on little.

I voted for Tamuz because I thought at the time that his behaviour warranted it. When I said "not incredibly scummy"

in context

, it shoud've been clear that I meant I wsn't claiming certainty of his having a scum role - not that the vote was for nothing.

And this is pretty over-the-top. I didn't say you were sure of Tamuz having a scum role -- nor have I said that I'm sure of Pariah having a scum role. My point is that I explained why I think Pariah's a decent place for a vote right now -- which is

exactly

what you did with Tamuz. Do you see how what we've done is the same but you're defending your actions while attacking mine?

If I think an attack goes too far, I’ll defend someone.

Please explain to me how on earth my post was an "attack" and how it "went too far." And, if you can do that, you'll have to explain how your post voting Tamuz is different.

This isn’t the first time I’ve pushed for a more in-depth explanation of an attack-type post, even in this game.

Adele, again, it is incredibly strong language to call my vote post an "attack."

There are any number of reasons why you’ve not articulated the reasons you voted Pariah sufficiently for me to “get” them:
1) I’m being dim
2) you’re inarticulate
3) you think it’s self-evident
4) the reasons are shakier than you think
5)you’re scum trying to bandwagon an innocent.
Further discussion should solve any but "5", so obviously I want further discussion.

Here it is again.

I voted Pariah based on a quick re-read. In his three posts (excluding the pre-game one) it looks like he's encouraging suspicion broadly without committing to a favorite...as though he'll be ready to join any bandwagon without being the leader (not the first vote) or a follower (already expressed suspicion).

Enough for a vote.

That's all I said. I have no idea how you can't "get" it. Or why you think it's not enough for a Day one first vote on a player.

Or

why you're overly concerned about it in the first place. I think your attention to this has gotten only

more

interesting.

[MeMe]

I'm still pretty happy with my vote -- just in case anyone thought I merely wasn't paying attention.

[MeMe]

unvote: Pariah
vote: Talitha

[MeMe]

Adele -- really. It's usually best to let the person being voted question the vote OR wait to see who seems worried about it if no explanation is offered.

But, regardless, this one

should

be obvious to anyone with any research ability whatsoever, so I'll just go ahead and say why.

1) She said she didn't have access and has now told every other thread in which she posted limited access that she's back EXCEPT for this one.
2) Before she left, she made it sound as though she wanted to vote Pariah but wasn't doing so only because she wouldn't have access
3) She now has access but hasn't returned here ONLY -- and still isn't voting Pariah
4) That says, to me, that she doesn't want to vote Pariah for some reason. More likely that reason involves her being scum than him being scum, in my opinion.

Add the above to the fact that she's been uncharacteristically quiet, and she's my new favorite

And just because I was happy with a vote at one time doesn't mean I'm going to be happy with it forever -- surely you see how ridiculous it is to insinuate otherwise. I do read the thread and willingly change my mind based on what is/isn't there. Anyone who doesn't do that is just playing poorly.

[MeMe]

I just periodically click the "profile" button of people who haven't been posting to see if they're posting elsewhere. Once you get to the profile page you click "find all posts by..." and it has everything they've ever posted listed last-to-first.

[MeMe]

Obviously you must play your own game, Alexander -- but I've got a few questions for you:

1) What would you consider "major" evidence worthy of your vote (exclude cop investigation, please)?
2) Why did you say that it looked bad for her and cite "lynch all liars" only to back off of that once the examples were provided?
3) Do you think that considering behavior from past games is valid or not good practice when attempting to determine a player's current alignment?

[MeMe]

You are mistaken.

Your history is one of attentiveness in every game, regardless of role. I don't think I've ever seen you use the "oops! forgot about this game!" excuse

anywhere

and I'm somewhat appeased to see you're not attempting to use it here.

[MeMe]

As I told Adele, "attacks" is a strong word.

When I'm voting, it will always be for the person I consider most likely to be scum at the time. Since that changes often (especially on day one), I will be changing votes often. Please recall that none of my votes contained any reason (aka "attack") to begin -- they were simply votes. I was pressed to defend the votes and, since I was able to do so, it seems you're now able to characterize those as attacks. Would you think it more reasonable to park a vote when one no longer thinks it's the best place for it?

Now let's look at your post.

I figured that if the most experienced player in the game fingered those 3, at least one will turn up scum. Alas, this was not meant to be.

Please tell me how you've arrived at the conclusion that none of the three are scum. I will point out that I, myself, am currently of the mind that neither broomhead or Pariah is the number-one suspect -- otherwise, I'd still be voting one of them. I'd also like to know whether you think that being "the most experienced player" in a game means "catches scum within first three vote tries." I'd really like to see some of your PBPA because, later on this post, you say that you're not saying that the none of the three are scum...but right here you kinda do. I'd like to see what you found and why you're waffling.

The attack on broomhead: starts when he FOS's me for flimsy reasons (although it's the start of the game, so anything goes), ends when he makes a mistake (deliberate or not?) regarding how many people to lynch.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "deliberate or not" here. If you think it was deliberate, that should mean that you think his mistake is a lie and, as you said earlier, "lynch all liars." Was that in your PBPA?

The attack on Pariah: starts as he makes 3 posts that "encourage broad suspicion", according to MeMe. However on a third re-read, I actually begin to see those posts are raising perfectly valid points AND refusing to sell his vote for cheap... which is exactly what I am trying to do.

Alexander, as I said in my explanation for my vote on Pariah -- it was enough for a vote. Three others (you included) thought that I had a valid point.

The attack quells when a more suitable (?) target appears, in the shape of dial-up-Talitha. Or maybe it had something to do with not enough people joining the wagon.

It had everything to do with me changing my mind. Explained in full.

The attack on Talitha: accused T. of lying about her access.

Certainly did not accuse her of lying. I pointed out that she herself had said elsewhere that her connection had returned and that it seemed she was deliberately staying out of this thread only (proven correct) and that it seemed that it might be because she doesn't want to vote Pariah despite her expressing interest in doing so (proof pending).

Initially sounded convincing, but when I examined the evidence there was actually not much in it. Lich, Adele and Foolster also voiced opinions that it's mildly suspicious, but not enough for a vote.

This might be where we differ most strongly. On day one, everything's enough for a vote. I'll also just point out that though I

might

be wrong about why she stayed away, the explanation you provided on her behalf ("she forgot") was definitely wrong according to Talitha herself.

MeMe herself seems to have withdrawn the allegation. She's not attacking Talitha in her last post.

When I change my mind, I will change my vote. Every post I make need not contain defense of prior actions. Even if I do wind up changing my vote -- that won't necessarily negate earlier observations. Don't assume that I no longer agree with myself just because I choose not to repeat myself. Case in point: I could easily go back to voting for Pariah later. He's just not my best guess at the moment.

Now, I'm not saying of course those 3 aren't scum, but I think their chances are not higher than anyone elses. Which of course led me to think about the initiator of the attacks, MeMe.

Again, the loaded use of "attacks."

All of this put together leads me to believe that MeMe is attacking people whom she really doesn't believe to be scum. Is she doing so because she is scum herself and is trying to shove a wagon into motion, or is she just a townie probing at semi-random to see if she stirs up a hornet's nest?

None of the above. As I said, I'll be voting the person I think most worthy of a vote at any time. Nothing "semi-random" about any vote I make past my first one. They're not concrete, because it's day one -- but they're always my best guess.

I'd like to check this, and the only way to do it is to stir up something myself. In other words, run something up the flagpole and see who will salute; rattle the cage and see who will ask for a banana... ok, enough with the metaphores already...

Cool. You claim to be voting someone you suspect to see what happens. Wonder why I'm accused for doing the same...

[MeMe]

Which means that I'm credited with gathering about three times the information that you are currently, right?

I like to have a vote "out there" on day one -- I think that

most

experienced players do, but you're welcome to check my other games if you question my truthfulness in this. When it takes six to lynch, the votes aren't as precious.

[MeMe]

Just for the sake of completeness: do you plan on responding more fully later?

[MeMe]

Certainly doesn't freak me out, but it does make me change my mind once again about who should be voted.

unvote: Talitha
vote: Adele

You'd been riding me over nothing you hadn't done yourself -- backing off rather fast ("no longer desperate to have [me] explain") when a few others agreed with me. Last time you posted, it was to say you thought I was "okayish" -- not that you still had your eye on me or anything, but that you now believed that you needn't distrust me and that we simply disagree with one another "a lot." One person votes me (and has since backed off a tad since I responded well and corrected some of his case) and you hop on with "he didn't say anything I haven't thought." Basically, you hauled me up to the front of the class early without voting me...got no support...said "I think she's alright now"...and only put your vote where your mouth is (was...then wasn't...now is again, that is) once Alexander did it first.

Either your last post was bull or the current one is. Either way, I'll be surprised if someone more suspicious pops up today.

[MeMe]

Fair enough.

[MeMe]

I'd like a show of hands:

Who thinks none of my reasons for my votes were very good?

[MeMe]

Just checking in. And I'll ditto the last line of Adele's post...

It's possible MeMe's sincere... but she's the best one for me out there right now.

...substituting "Adele" where she's got "MeMe," of course.

[MeMe]

I'd normally be against a mass role claim this early as scum usually start with more information than town and mass claim of any kind just gives them a bigger advantage.

But hey. This game is a special case. vIQles

has

made it clear that we shouldn't buy any "I've got a bad name but I'm really GOOD" gambits -- so what the heck. At best, we expose the flaws in a broken game and win it in record time. At worst, all of the names will sound innocent and we'll have to depend on our powers of deduction to figure out who to vote. Exactly like we're doing now.

So, I'm in favor of the name claim.

[MeMe]

Um. Moot post, anyone?

[MeMe]

Alexander --

1) It is the mod's right (and, I think, duty) to do their best to balance a game to make it fun for ALL of the players. I respect vIQles' attempt to do that. I do agree that it's his fault if it wasn't balanced in the first place and that it was ill-advised to a) post the "good in the movie=good in the game" publicly (he should have answered each confused question individually) and b) say that he was changing the rules due to "complaints."

2) To say that the scum "whined their way into a get out of jail free pass" is ridiculous. It's quite possible that, due to that research, they know full well that a mass claim makes it impossible for them to win and pointed that out to vIQles. Good on them, if that's what happened.

3) What would your opinion be of players who chose to quit if vIQles DIDN'T implement some sort of non-game-breaking policy? I daresay it'd be low. You might have believed that flavor games should be easier because of the flavor -- but it's a flaw in the game if they are.

4) Even with the "no mass claiming" rule -- vIQles has basically written us the loophole (the same one suggested by Foolster41): pressure each player in turn. So why are you quitting, anyway?

Full disclosure: as a moderator, I've tweaked a game midstream to make it more playable/fair for the SK, so I'm sympathetic to a moderator who wants to do the same with his game. You're upset that all your hard work might go to waste (though, as pointed out, it won't if we just

pressure

everyone). Well, think how much MORE hard work vIQles did writing the game. His fix attempts are surely a way to stop his hard work from being flushed away in no time.

As for this:

Since proposing such an obviously pro-town plan clearly labels me as town, I am sure my replacement would appreciate doc protection tonight.

...forgive my skepticism. But I can certainly see this little scenario

• you are scum who did research and realized that you and your scum buddies have the only "bad" names in the movie without safe claims
• you complained to him that when it comes to claiming, you guys are screwed
• he said that if mass claim looks like it's going to happen, he'll step in to stop it
• you forced the issue knowing that he was going to save you...but the WAY he did it (admitting it was due to "complaints" and then providing a loophole) still made it rather unwinnable for you
• you quit out of frustration and because it's still rather unlikely you'll win

See? No reason for anyone but scum to quit. So, if you're not scum, you might as well stay in.

[MeMe]

I rather like the idea of no-lynching quickly today. Pressuring everyone individually sounds like rather a time-consuming hassle when the restriction will be gone tomorrow.

unvote: Adele
vote: no lynch

[MeMe]

First post says townie.

First post also says that Maz Medias = N_lich & stark = Alexander -- for everyone's general info.

[MeMe]

Right now we've got

For Claim

Pariah
Foolster41
broomhead
Adele
Tamuz

Against Claim

chaotic_diablo

Unclear

Fritzler
Maz Medias
stark

I'll add my name to the "unclear" pile and I'll explain what I mean.

I'm all for using everything at our disposal to win the game -- I rather think that's what every player

should

want, even if it makes the game a little less fun. However, I'll add this little point: we should have one person claim and then discuss it (wait for counter-claims, weigh-in on the scumminess of the claim etc.). I don't like the idea of mafia being able to get information for free if it's unnecessary for us to give it to them. It might even be worth their while to sacrifice one of their own today for a full look at the names in the game.

Basically --

vote: claim

, though I think it's smartest if we consider stopping after each new reveal.

[MeMe]

Just a post to make sure that everyone reads my (simul)-post above Adele's before we go further.

[MeMe]

There's no "a down and out" in the role listing on IMDb --

was

that a claim?

[MeMe]

Well, according to the front post, Blousy & Tallulah are likely candidates for vanilla townies.

[MeMe]

I really don't think we should move on until we get the answer to the question: "does everyone else have an actual name."

So far, Adele, Pariah, stark and Tamuz have all said that they do. I do, too.

In my opinion, if no one else has a generic rather than proper name like Foolster, we should just lynch him rather than reveal more names/abilities. If no other "down and outs" show up, it doesn't make any sense for vIQles not to have just named the role "Babyface." Right?

[MeMe]

Does no one agree with me that we should probably

stop

claiming for the day? Or at least wait to make that decision until everyone's said whether or not they have a proper name?

Adele's last post brings up another good point in favor of lynching Foolster without tipping our hand further, in my opinion.

[MeMe]

Here're the facts:
--vIQles has said that if you're bad in the movie, you're bad in the game. No surprise alignments.
--vIQles said that a mass claim would swing things too far in favor of the town.

Unless he was being particularly crafty (which I seriously doubt), point two basically informed us that the scum have not been provided with "safe" claims.

So, barring anyone else claiming to have a non-proper name (and the only ones yet to say are Maz & Fritzler), Foolster's got to be lying. The only reason for making one pro-town role completely different from every other role in the game is to diminish the power of claiming -- it's basically a "you'll look like a liar when you claim" role. Since vIQles obviously didn't even consider mass claiming when he wrote the game, he also wouldn't have written a role to diminish the power of a mass claim.

Adele, I understand your feeling of it being unfair. But this is about being

smart

. I think it's clear that Foolster's likely to be scum. There's no reason to go forward with a plan that has served its purpose. As Tamuz said, let the scum stay as in the dark as possible.

vote: Foolster41

, I think that's three on him.

[MeMe]

I think this is unbefreakin-lievable, myself.

--Foolster's got a suspect role name
--Foolster's claim doesn't match the Bugsy claim

I think that Foolster is lying through his teeth. I believe that his extended claim was designed simply to out Bugsy since it seemed likely he was going to die.

I don't understand why anyone would think it benefits scum more than town to STOP HANDING OUT INFORMATION. It seems entirely clear to me that Foolster is the best lynch for the day. Is anyone else going to 1) claim a non-name or 2) be denounced by another player?? And, if so, can't we just wait for tomorrow for that and

keep the scum in the dark for a little longer??

If EVERYONE else thinks we need to continue claiming, I'll go along with it -- but Adele's preference that everyone should claim in their next post or explain why they're not is extremely off. Our goal in a mass claim should be to get the scum to go as early as possible -- not just to tell them what NOT to claim by willingly going ahead of them. There's

no way

I'm just offering up my name without the others who've been asked to claim ahead of me going first.

If we're continuing with the mass claim, broomhead should have to go next. Adele picked Foolster who picked broomhead. But I renew my objection to continuing when it's clear we've got a prime candidate for the noose right in front of us.

[MeMe]

Adele -- do you think that Foolster is likely to be scum?

[MeMe]

Then shouldn't you be satisfied with your choice rather than wishing you'd "picked [me] to claim next"?

[MeMe]

Erm...Adele...

Scum now know not to claim a non-name role and not to claim cop or mason. So, even if I were scum, I'd not screw up, right? The scum have plenty of information on how NOT to claim at this point. I think it very unlikely that they're going to mess up further since we didn't stop and wait after each claim -- something I requested BEFORE you jumped in and offered your claim.

Do you agree that it's unlikely that scum are going to say anything any "shakier" than Foolster already has? If you

do

agree -- then please tell me how continuing the mass claim benefits town more than mafia (and saying "we're not following yesterday's plan isn't an explanation). If you

don't

agree -- well, you're insane.

[MeMe]

I didn't mean to be insulting. I am, however, having a really hard time understanding your arguments. They seem to be "stick with the plan because it's the plan" more than anything else.

I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me -- that's clear. I will point out that my opinion about HOW the claiming should be handled today was stated prior to any claims actually being made.

I'm not in the mood to go back and check but, off the top of my head, I think it's only Maz who agrees with you that it's best to keep claiming. Is that right? Could everyone (other than Adele, Maz, and myself whose opinions are clear) state whether they think we should stop or continue? And, Adele and Maz, are you willing to abide by the majority opinion on the matter? For the record, I'll go with the majority.

[MeMe]

Why are you scared of a mass name-claim when it is so manifestly pro-town a manouvre

, though?

What makes you think I'm "scared" of a mass name-claim? Furthermore -- what do you not understand in all of my explanations where I explain WHY I think it benefits scum more than town at this point??

I also find it absolutely amazing that you're voting me while admitting that you believe Foolster likely to be scum.

Broomhead -- I note your request that I go next. So far, there are four people in favor of continuing (Adele, Maz, Pariah, and broom). That's not yet a majority, so I'll not yet name claim.

I think it's clear that Foolster is scum. I think Maz's earlier jump to explain Foolster's role looked like a partner covering for another. I think his eagerness to vote broomhead based on the "thug" in his name makes him even MORE suspect. Earlier Maz made a point of telling us that he knows the movie better than others (after the "down and out" tutorial) and that means that he should

know

that Snake Eyes is one of Sam's gang. Hell,

I

know that from researching the name

just now

and I've never seen the movie. I'd prefer that HE claim next (and I'm surprised broomhead's more interested in my name than Maz's, but whatever).

[MeMe]

Four think we should continue, three think we should stop. One of those three is chaotic_diablo, who also hasn't yet claimed. So, if you're being fair, you'd also have to assume that

he's

"trying to wriggle out" of claiming, right? And yet you don't mention him.

But she won't go ahead without another public vote for the mass name-claim.

And, sorry to burst your bubble, Adele -- but five isn't a majority. If we end up five to five on this issue, I'll obviously keep mum since that's

my

preference.

[MeMe]

Who? Me and chaotic? Then why are you STILL voting broomhead? Even after Adele (who you've been following around like a puppy) has assured us he's town?

Give me a break, people. Ask Maz to claim or admit you don't care about catching scum. After all, he's WILLING to claim right now...or so he's said every time he's echoed Adele.

[MeMe]

Um, no. I'm in favor of stopping the claims totally -- and you know that.

What I AM saying is that those of you who are still pushing for mass claims should at least be smart about it. You claiming first without being asked by anyone to do so was completely crazy, in my opinion. As I said before -- we should be trying to get scum to claim FIRST. Maz looks like scum to me. Town willingly jumping ahead of scum is silly -- and I'm far from silly. You know, earlier you said you'd not FOS based on those who don't want to claim because they might not consider it as fun. Apparently, however, if a player has a deeper reason than "not fun," that IS scummy? How do you figure? If I were scum, you're saying that I could've just said "wah! no fun!" and you'd have had to concede the point?

Now...

Again, why do you want to? Oh yeah, so the scum won't benefit from a mass name-claim. Even though it's been established that the town would benefit from one, not the scum.

I was looking at this and thinking "it's been

established

"? No -- what the mod said was that a mass claim would unbalance the game YESTERDAY. So why would he allow one

today

?

I'm starting to wonder if we've got four scum. That would seem to fit.

Otherwise we've got a masonish group of three (Adele, broomhead, and another), the mod telling us that, basically, we'll be able to figure out everyone's aligment if we're all

honest

about our names (something only town can be counted on to be), the potential for another mason group of two (Bugsy & Blousey), a cop, and other power roles yet to be exposed.

How on earth could that be balanced on ANY day? Basically, if there are four scum. Then, a wrong lynch today loses it for us. If there are only three scum, then they never had a chance unless they're some super-duper powered up clan (or unless, as someone suggested earlier, they were given safe claims last night -- though Foolster's claim indicates otherwise).

We've got a scum. Let's lynch him.

[MeMe]

Why are YOU scared of anything

other

than a mass claim?

And why aren't you talking at all about the fact that Maz is still choosing to vote a person you say is innocent? Go on the record now, because I'm intensely curious: do you think Maz or I is currently more scummy?

[MeMe]

And to clarify -- scum not having mod-provided safe claims is not the same as there BEING no safe claims. There are more than 12 role names in the movie. Surely you've noticed that. Surely you've deduced that the more pro-town players who claim, the more likely it is that scum will be able to claim something unassigned.

What is so difficult about understanding this? Do you not agree that, if possible, town should do everything they can to claim as late as possible to force scum to GUESS at what's available and believable?

[MeMe]

I don't "think" we're in a lynch or lose. I am considering the possibility based on a re-read of everything (something I didn't do yesterday).

If we have four scum, then it was a mistake to vote no-lynch on day one. I'm willing to admit I may have made a mistake. Are you?

Basically, it's not making much sense to me that what would be disallowed on day one because it would make it unfair would be ALLOWED on day two unless it was

no longer

unfair. And if a mass claim is no longer unfair -- it's no longer definitely pro-town to do it willy-nilly (a point I made in the simul-post above your speedy claim even BEFORE I considered a four-scum set-up). Maybe vIQles is just a really bad mod...but I think that if he was worried about rescuing the game, he would have done it in a way that might actually

work

.

I'm willing to hear feedback on this -- but you seem to just be close-minded to everything I have to say. I'm just asking you to consider the possibility that continuing an unnecessary mass claim isn't necessarily the smartest thing for town to do. Also -- I just want to put this out there for you to think over, though I don't really expect you to answer it in the thread -- would you be more open to my ideas if you

hadn't

yet claimed?

And, for the record, I obviously no longer think you're scum. I haven't since you claimed. It's incredibly frustrating to argue with a player I'm pretty sure is on my side -- it's a distraction the scum have got to be loving. Can you imagine how Foolster's feeling? I'm sure he's all "yay! I outed Bugsy and Adele is still pushing for MORE!" His lynch will not be in vain several times over. Basically, I believe we both want to secure a win for the town. If it's as easy as you contend, then what

harm

does stopping do?

[MeMe]

Above was obviously addressed to Adele.

[MeMe]

I agree that Seol's a good player, Adele -- but if that's the information you gave him, you misled him.

Go to him again and tell him that it wasn't "three claims in" but, rather, prior to the claims

beginning

that it was suggested that we stop when we had what we needed to lynch correctly.

I believe that will make a world of difference.

[MeMe]

To be fair --

1) if you're innocent, Seol knows that and will, of course, interpret everything about the game with that knowledge -- which is something the rest of us can't do.

2) it's possible you're just telling everyone that Seol agrees with you because it's an easy way to beef up your argument. "Smart guy says I'm right!"

I don't necessary think that #2 is accurate -- but I do know that I'm innocent and I still think I'm right. Go and ask Seol what he thinks about

me

as a player.

[MeMe]

No. I'm reading the game with the thoughts that you're innocent and the knowledge that I am. What I was saying is that the rest of us can't read with the "Adele perspective" like he can. He has to consider that the person making the case to change the "mass claim" into a "claim in turns which stops when we've nailed someone" (again -- prior to its start) could be scum. I can't do that.

No one

can read from your point of view only because they know their

own

role and, obviously, know whether or not they can be trusted.

[MeMe]

~takes this opportunity to agree with Adele~

[MeMe]

I think Fritzler might need a poke.

[MeMe]

Sorry -- thought you might've forgotten about the game since I'd seen you around elsewhere.

[MeMe]

As I said before 5 doesn't equal majority. And you only have four anyway since Pariah's now "unclear" rather than sold on continuing.

If there was majority consensus, I'd have claimed immediately.

[MeMe]

Make that "undecided" rather than "unclear."

[MeMe]

And I will claim if six people say they want claims to continue -- but I'm thinking that if those who've yet to weigh-in on the subject actually

read

my posts and consider my points, they'll see that going forward isn't the best plan. We have a scum to lynch -- and, in my opinion, maz is probably ANOTHER scum and he's pro-claim as well. Two likely scum who want claims to continue...doesn't that tell you that continuing claims is exactly what the scum

prefer

?

And as for Maz unvoting when he was told, basically, that he HAD to and was provided with a handy excuse for his copying pleasure ("he probably just forgot")...well, that doesn't count for much.

And I think chaotic's been pretty clear, myself.

I'm not really interested in hearing anymore nameclaims. However, I'm also not ready to lynch foolster either. There's seems to be a slight illogical tweak in maz. I want to hear more of what he has to say.

broomhead -- do you still want ME to go first if mass claiming's forced through?

[MeMe]

So much for anyone actually considering my points, eh?

I'm Lena Marelli. And I, obviously, pick Maz to go next.

[MeMe]

Foolster should be lynched. Period.

Think about it -- even if he WERE telling the truth, what on earth reason could he have for outing Bugsy as a vigilante? The

only

logical explanation for what he did is that he's scum who knew he was caught and wanted to force Bugsy to come forward with a "nuh-uh!"

The only thing I can find out about Lena by researching it is that she's a singer at Fat Sam's and that the part's for a soprano.

And I think I can say with authority that at least one of these statements is true:

1) There are less than four scum
2) If there are four scum, the one(s) who claimed after me is/are idiotic.

[MeMe]

Wasn't it already revealed as Fritzler?

[MeMe]

Well, as is my usual pattern, I've been PMing the mod throughout this game with comments/complaints/etc.

It is

I

who questioned whether or not the game would be unbalanced with a mass claim on day one (and check vIQles post -- he states it wasn't scum who did so), though I was obviously unaware that 1) my concern was valid and 2) he'd stop the claims. It is because of his responses to my "what the heck were you THINKING" string of PMs

today

that I considered the possibility of there being a four-person scum group. I pointed out that mafia is, in a nutshell, a game of "informed minority vs. uninformed majority" and that, if the "good" name roles

are

truly good (as he said) then I've got to believe that Adele's being truthful. There are three informed majorities right there. By the same token, I have to believe that Pariah's being truthful. There's two more informed majorities right THERE (if Blousey had lived). That's incredibly unbalanced. vIQles basically told me that the game's more balanced than it seems.

As I said earlier, I believe that IF there's a four-person scum group, any scum who claimed after me is really silly. Basically, the "duh" move for scum would've been to counter-claim me and, with all of the pressure from seemingly-confirmed innocent Adele -- I'd have probably been the one lynched. Game over.

So. If the game is as truly balanced as vIQles insists it is today...that means that there are some liars in the "obvious" claims OR that the scum is powered up OR that they might have some kind of recruitment ability OR something else entirely. I'm thinking it's possible, even, that the scum were given

one

safe claim to share. That might make things more balanced on day two than day one. If anyone's got some idea of how this game can

possibly

be balanced other than what I've suggested -- please, pitch them.

I still think Foolster's the right lynchee today. There is nothing townish about 1) his claim being unnamed or 2) him outing a vig, in my opinion. I'd prefer NOT to go no-lynch today.

[MeMe]

Oh, and the problem with Adele's ideas for tonight is that if we have a doc and (s)he's protecting stark -- what's to prevent scum from simply killing Tamuz, making it impossible for him to denounce Foolster again tomorrow?

[MeMe]

Unverifiable references to private conversations with the mod? Pardon me if I don't suddenly consider you a confirmed innocent...

But you DO know for a fact that someone brought the possibility of mass claim unbalancing the game to his attention AND that he has stated that it wasn't scum who did so. So, pardon me if I think you SHOULD consider me a confirmed innocent -- unless someone wants to counter-claim my claim to have been the complainant, that is.

So, roll your eyes, but if no one counter-claims me -- I'm actually confirmed by the mod as not being scum and that means you must believe the REST of my statement. Get it?

[MeMe]

vote: Maz

I think he could be telling the truth about his ability -- but, based on his play yesterday, I think it's more likely he's a scum bodyguard.

[MeMe]

I want to hear her claim before we lynch her or anything, but I don't think it's any great secret that broomhead and I suspected her quite a bit a while back - I still think her trying to end the mass name-claim (and successful stalling of it for, what, a week?) was deeply scummy.

Yes -- I tried to stop the mass name-claim while saying that we should definitely lynch Foolster then Maz. I'm crafty that way.

I'm Lena, as I said. I'm the star singer at the club. I'm indisposed -- as long as I want to I can stay at home and be safe from nightkilling. When I want to return to the stage, I am able to (paraphrasing) crush the dreams of one player nightly. I took that to mean I was an SK -- but when I checked with vIQles pre-game, he told me I win with the town. I've not yet left home.

Now. Tell me how the game can POSSIBLY be balanced with my role AND Pariah's role AND a cop who gets role name hints (much stronger than alignment, in my opinion, as a simple false claim could trip up scum) AND a three-person mason group AND a possible two-person group AND the mod flat-out telling us all that good names = good roles.

If you can do all that and still come up with a way to get around the fact that vIQles said that the person who complained wasn't scum, well then -- if you're town you're simple. And if you're scum, you deserve to win.

I believe that one of the masons is scum. There is no other way that I can see for this game to be balanced. Zero. Even if you believe that I'm scum, you'd have to admit that this game would be hugely skewed toward us winning.

[MeMe]

Wow. That's a kind of sloppy stream-of-consciousness post.

You would probably want to remove the "with my role" part of the first paragraph if you think I'm scum. And the last line of the post is referring, of course, to me being town despite the fact that I was giving a scenario in which I'm assumed scum.

You get the gist.

[MeMe]

Oh -- and I didn't see chaotic's claim before I posted in response to Adele.

Add AND a back-up cop to the paragraph of apparent balancing dilemmas.

And if you don't trust my earlier recounting of my conversation with the mod, why not simply PM him

yourself

and ask him how the game can possibly be balanced? See what he tells

you

.

And Adele & Fritzler, if you're town, the fact that you're STILL VOTING ME when c_d says he's waiting on the result is ridiculous

and

suspicious -- especially for Fritzler who seems to believe it's possible there's another two-person group excited about lynching town.

[MeMe]

Adele, if you're town, just admit that if the set up is as you color it to be -- losing it as town would be damn near impossible.

[MeMe]

Let me put this out there for EVERYONE. Don't allow Adele to continue to bully the town without considering what I've got to say.

If I'm the remaining scum, here's the set up:

3 scum
1 doctor
1 cop
1 back-up cop
3 masons
2 potential masons
1 townie

Adele's thoughts about how this can be balanced is "if some thing happens but only at a particular time" and "anything but bad mason in the group 'cause that would be 'bad mod.'"

I think we've pretty much established that vIQles isn't too great a mod or he'd not have announced IN THE THREAD that good names = good roles...nor would he have had to forbid a mass claim on day one...etc.

I've been checking the mafia discussion threads about mafia masons and mods lying to players daily to see what vIQles might say in there...he's not yet said anything. I think that's notable in itself.

vote: Adele

For refusing to unvote me while waiting on c_d's results. And for ignoring the fact that vIQles has stated that the person confused about roles and complaining about the unbalancing IS TOWN. And for touting the ridiculous notion that a mod can't possibly be a bastard to the town when, if the game is as she's saying it is, he must have been a bastard to the scum. Either it's a horrible set-up or it's not as clear-cut as Adele's desperately pretending.

Remember. She wants to make it look scummy that I wanted to stop the claiming when it appeared that we had two scum (now proven to be correct). I submit that it's much MORE scummy that she wanted to

continue

it when we had two scum.

[MeMe]

You claim that role name hints are better than alignment info. I disagree; alignment cops learn alignment, where rolename cops only learn one aspect of character. An example of how this link might be weak is the role of Lena Marelli. If someone fake-claimed, however, they'd likely be anti-town and appear so to alignment investigations anyway, so I don't see how name-

hint

cops are so special.

Um...consider the hint that was given: "he likes to crack his knuckles," (or something like). So, sure, in general, a hint cop (or thief) might not be as powerful. But in this particular game, the hint is, basically, a name hint. Since we've been told that good names = good roles, that's huge -- much bigger than an alignment cop who would probably get backward information on a godfather and who would be watched for sanity in any case.

As for my balancing thoughts? Tamuz could be lying about him being a potential mason with Blousey...but that says, to me, that his Bugsy claim would have to be false altogether. The other non-mason roles that might be lying are chaotic and Pariah -- but neither of those would balance the game enough for vIQles to

call

it balanced with a straight face. If there are two mason groups or an SK -- where are the extra kills? As for your attempt to call me an SK who's been biding her time...what SK would trust the scum to do all the killing when there are three masons hugging each other publicly?

The most likely way for this particular game to be balanced, in my opinion, is for one of the masons to be scum. The fact that you dismiss it because it wouldn't be fair is amazing to me. Certainly you're smart enough to see that this game has to be at least

somewhat

unclear to the town or it's unbalanced. The possibility that vIQles could have lied might make some mad...but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for vIQles to have

done

it. That you refuse to consider it out of hand and continue to push me despite pending cop result and vIQles own in-thread words about my alignment (I mean, if you say we should trust what you tell us he told you it only makes sense that you must also advocate belief in what he says publicly...yet you DON'T) makes you the most likely of the masons to be the scum.

Also remember that scum will HAVE TO

LYNCH

ME. I'm the most dangerous one left in the game. I can stay at home and be untouchable or I can decide to become a vigilante.

[MeMe]

By the way, posts 705 and 706 were simultaneous. I think that MeMe's attitude to me and my attitude to MeMe are both pretty clear. If she has any more questions for me (or if anyone does), of course, I'll happily answer them. But I doubt either one of us wants to just argue it out between ourselves ad nauseum.

I certainly don't mind. But then again, I'm fighting for my life. You're cozy with your little mason buddies, aren't you?

[MeMe]

Here are the options: either Adele was attacked last night and protected by Pariah; I was attacked last night and protected by remaining indisposed; or the choice not to kill was made. Does everyone agree with that?

1) Adele -- besides Pariah, the most likely target if she wasn't scum, which means that she's the most likely protection target if she's town. If I were scum, I certainly wouldn't want her dead because that would mean that my chief executioner would be exposed as town and that ain't good for me.
2) MeMe -- the person most likely to be the next day's sacrifice. The only reasons to go after me would be to a) discredit Adele or b) because scum somehow found out that I'm powerful -- which could be the way the game is balanced (!). Mafia cop?
3) No kill -- possible, but seems incredibly wasteful with the way things are going for non-town.

[MeMe]

Indeed.

I'm rather tired of people simply dismissing valid points with a wave of the hand and an abbreviation. Everyone uses it in mafia at times because, in the absence of absolutes, it's a necessity. "Which makes more sense? This one or that one? On one hand

this

...on the other

that

."

After all saying that vIQles wouldn't lie to you is also WIFOM. Right?

I rue the day WIFOM acronym was introduced on the board. It's made players lazy.

[MeMe]

And I'll point out that you left out the first part of that point (not to mention the rest of the post altogether)...

1) Adele -- besides Pariah, the most likely target if she wasn't scum, which means that she's the most likely protection target if she's town.

So...you dismissied one-half of one point in a post, and...what? Excuse yourself from having to refute the rest and hope that no one else does either?

You're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) "MeMe MIGHT have tried to kill me even though, if she were successful, she'd only make it harder on herself tomorrow. As for the rest of her point -- that I was likely to be protected -- I'll just not mention that because then I can't be flippant."

I'm

pretty

sure I've got the gist, but I'm open to constructive criticism.

[MeMe]

I do not think it comes down "either MeMe or Adele is scum." For me it comes down to "since I'm not scum, who

is

?"

I think the facts are that vIQles says this is balanced. The most likely way that I see for the game to be balanced is to have one of the "confirmed" three not be what (s)he seems. Since you're the least reasonable of the three, I think it might be you.

However, in my last "options" post, I realized that mafia cop is a possibility -- a thought that has been unaddressed. Please give me the courtesy of publicly saying whether or not you consider it a possibility and if not,

why

not.

As for the vIQles lying thing -- you can't label me saying "I wouldn't do that" as WIFOM and then say that your statement ("vIQles wouldn't do that")

isn't

. That's a double-standard.

As for your opinion that scum want to kill masons...why would that be so last night but not the night before? An outed voting block of three is more dangerous than a cop -- especially one you consider less useful than an alignment cop. Right? And why would

you

be the one selected when it's clear that you're their "leader" and the one of the three most likely to be protected?

Basically -- you're saying that I'd have not considered a group of three threatening Night 2 but would have thought so Night 3 and gone after the one who'd been riding me AND is, pretty much, leading everyone by the nose. The most logical conclusion to me is that the mason group has not been targeted because one of the masons has been directing the kills away from them to preserve the voting block of three.

Your earlier statement...

But, to be honest, the only people I trust now are Fritzler and broomhead (and I do trust them completely).

...should send a child through broomhead and Fritzler. In a game declared "balanced" by the mod (again -- ask him yourself if you refuse to believe me. Anyone done that yet??), a completely trustworthy three-person group is downright insane. You could have no cop, no doctor, no anything else and you'd still have a better shot than a three-person scum group.

Mafia is a game of uninformed majority vs. informed minority. Giving the town MORE information than the scum rather unbalances it immediately. That's

without

adding in a cop, a back-up cop, a doc, a self-protector/vig and another two-person potential group.

I'll actually be pretty mad I spent words posting in this game if one of the masons ISN'T scum. If it's unwinnable for the mafia team and I spent time arguing that it

must

be less simple than it appears...well, what a waste of time.

[MeMe]

...should send a child through broomhead and Fritzler.

Erm..."chill" not "child."

hehe!

[MeMe]

Adele --

I'm saying that complete trust between three people breaks the game -- it should chill them that you "trust them completely" because, until the end of the game, you should maintain at least a grain of skepticism toward

everyone

.

As for whether or not we've made progress? That depends on one's point of view. Your stated point of view is "MeMe needs to die now." So, I'm guessing that "progress" to you would be more votes on me -- so you'd probably consider this a lack of progress.

My

point of view is that I'm still at two votes despite the fact that you're saying, basically "don't listen to her -- lynch, lynch, lynch." I think the lack of more votes might indicate that my posts are at least being considered -- which I'm

hoping

means progress.

As for worrying about this being a fight? Weird worry. It's a mafia game. The person most likely to be lynched (me) is certainly gonna have to be in the "fight." If you don't want to be one of two people, you can 1) step aside and let others make up their own minds or 2) call out others to participate.

If you're unwilling to do either of those, then what's the point of addressing me with this "worry"? It's not like I'm just gonna lay down and die to make things easier. I'll respond to

anyone

-- you're just the only one talking.

broomhead --

WIFOM means "wine in front of me" and is referencing Vizzini's speech in Princess Bride where he considers which wine glass is more likely poisoned. The way it's used lazily in mafia games is when people say "oh, he brought up a situation that looks right from one angle, but not another! WIFOM!" as though the person who brought up the subject is somehow at fault for doing so simply

because

it can't be known for sure. Lawyers must employ the "which makes more sense" arguments all the time. Does the opposing counsel say "WIFOM"? Or is the opposing counsel forced to show how his/her case is the stronger? I'm saying that anyone who counters a case with "WIFOM" is attempting a shortcut and, basically, saying "I don't have a compelling counter-argument."

[MeMe]

(and MeMe i know you have a problem with this mason thing, deal with it)

broomhead. Let's say you

weren't

a mason but were pro-town. Now, honestly, wouldn't you have a bit of a "problem" with it? And wouldn't you have further problem with one of said masons telling you to "deal with it"?

MeMe-scum, yes i know you want reasons, scroll through the forum, you've been on people's scum-dar since day one and people have been coming up with reasons for a while.

And people who are on a "scumdar" are

always

scum and I should just say "oh, right. Well, if it's been happening since day one I guess I just have to concede." Is that it?

Furthermore -- mine's a provable role. Lynch someone else or no-lynch and let me vig someone. Neither would lose the game even if I AM scum.

Interestingly, the four-person scum group was initially MY idea and I got a lot of flak for it when I suggested that we tread carefully for fear of losing the game to a four-scum group outright. Adele's "must keep claiming" agenda prevailed, however. Ah -- good times.

As for the WIFOM disagreement: whatever. I don't have any problem with your explanation -- but your example isn't at all applicable to this particular situation unless you're suggesting that you and I are scum together or that I'm scum who was willing to 1) ignore the fact that you'd likely be protected and 2) was hoping that your death

wouldn't

make it more likely I'd be bandwagoned in an instant by your grieving, trusting partners. The first would be idiotic for scum desperate for town deaths...the second would be idiotic for me. So, just come out and say that you're calling me an idiot rather than pretending that "WIFOM" is valid here. 'kay?

[MeMe]

OK, Adele. We still disagree on the subject, but it doesn't look like either of us will concede any time soon.

broomhead -- I'm open to suggestions.

[MeMe]

So the suggestion is to lynch the claimed doc and have me give up my self-protection? Anyone

else

think that getting rid of all protection is a bad idea?

Um. Yeah.

[MeMe]

MeMe - well, what did you expect? You suggest we put your vig powers to the test, knowing full well that no mason (I hope you guys won't object to my making an absolute statement) would support the killing of any other mason. That leaves one to lynch today and one for you to nightkill - two deaths out of three remaining individuals! With a claimed doc and cop, one of these would have to die somewhere.

Um...let's see. How about suggesting a NO-LYNCH or that we lynch the one pro-town player 1) not claiming a power role and 2) not a mason?? That would be Tamuz. I don't understand how your suggestion "get rid of the protection AND the cop" should get anyone other than scum excited.

Besides, if this

is

a LyLo and you

are

scum, game over. I don't bite.

In what universe could this possibly be a lynch or lose?? The only one is if there are three scum left. Who's suggested

that

?

I think I'm back at wanting to lynch MeMe. If broomhead would be nice enough to vote for her and someone else jumped on too, that'd be great.

Surprise, surprise. I call your ridiculous plan a bad one and you want to lynch me "again," -- but since you never unvoted me, I doubt

you

were ever too into your plan yourself.

Tamuz, Pariah, chaotic: there are four of us and three of them. They think that we should bow down and trust them. At this point, I'm happy to lynch any one of the masons as all three of them are voting for ME. Take your pick and I'll join you.

[MeMe]

If you don't believe my claim, why do you fear putting a mason up as a test of my claim?

[MeMe]

And, furthermore (WIFOM -- yes -- but a valid point) -- if I were scum, all I'd have had to do was agree to the plan of lynching the claimed doc and I would know I'd be unhampered for night kills.

Instead, I voiced opposition and find myself back in the noose with an extra vote to boot. Oh, those crazy masons!

[MeMe]

I'm a little confused by the question.

Do you mean who would I

not

want to die? And are you talking about a lynch or me vigging?

[MeMe]

Pariah. If we take the claims at face-value, he's the most useful.

[MeMe]

I think a doctor is more useful than a cop -- but it's certainly open to debate.

Regardless, you earlier suggested that I vig chaotic overnight which would rather put a damper on him confirming anyone else.

Are we agreed that Tamuz is the

least

useful of the three?

[MeMe]

Um. I'm not an SK. Satisfied?

And broomhead

would

be right...

IF there is a third scum rather than a two-person group and
IF that third scum doesn't believe that there's an SK (or, if there is, they don't believe I'm it) and
IF none of three masons are the scum -- which would, of course, explain quite neatly why I'm not dead yet.

Also, if you seriously think I'm the SK or the lone remaining scum, there's absolutely no risk in no-lynching -- which is actually my preference. That way we won't go down three town (bad lynch, scum kill, my vig) for no reason. At worst, we'll be down two town if we no-lynch -- at best, one scum.

[MeMe]

unvote: Adele

But I'll hold off voting Tamuz until we talk some more -- I especially want to hear what both Tamuz's and chaotic's reactions are.

[MeMe]

As I said, I assumed I was an SK and I questioned vIQles -- his reply told me that the person whose dreams I crushed would be out of the game but that I'm pro-town.

So, whether or not it shows up as a kill, I don't know. But the effect is the same.

[MeMe]

Consider this: If one of the masons is an SK -- steering conversation at night toward mafia wouldn't mean much. Also, if one of the masons is a baddie with investigation protection, even fellow masons questioning the mod about alignment would yield "innocent" or "no comment." I still haven't seen the movie, so if someone who has could say for certain that the double-crosser mentioned earlier

isn't

one of the masons, that'd be great.

As for testing me: if I'm a mafia member, my kill should turn up the way the mafia kill did. If I'm a vig (or even SK) it should turn up differently -- at least I could prove I'm not mafia by testing me.

Now -- why is everyone ignoring the no-lynch idea? It seems the smartest by far to me. If we're lynching, I still prefer it to be someone without potentially town-helping abilities (Tamuz or a mason).

[MeMe]

As I said, I

prefer

a no-lynch -- seems the plan with the least risk.

But I'll probably join any plan that gives town a decent chance of survival -- and I believe that means keeping Pariah out of the noose today. It's not really the same thing to reverse the suggested lynchee and viggee (?) -- even though it'd wind up with the same two dead at the hands of the town. Lynching Pariah robs us of one more night of protection if he IS the doc while lynching Tamuz robs us of no action.

[MeMe]

Why

are you against a no-lynch?

[MeMe]

Oh, and I'm fine with a c_d lynch and a Tamuz vig.

[MeMe]

My information would not have been late if no one had agreed to a mass nameclaim and if Meme hadn't posted her role information after I had told everyone to wait a bit for me to recieve it.

I was

against

the mass name claim and no information you gave had anything to do with my actions -- just my name. What would have been helped had I waited? And, glory be, if I'd have waited until AFTER you gave your information, it would've been "oh, she's just matching her actions to what he said..." So, whatever.

As for no-lynching increasing the ratio of scum actions to town -- we're two for two with our lynches and we're drawn even in actions (making up for the day one no-lynch) since there were no kills last night. I say we're probably in the *best* situation for a no-lynch any town's ever been in on a fourth day in. Basically, lynching WRONG is what the scum wants -- lynching RIGHT is what we want. It's certainly possible we'll lose three pro-town players bam-bam-bam by lynching wrong, vigging wrong, and mafia hitting someone.

And Pariah -- why, exactly, do you suddenly want to vote me? I'm the one who said you're the most powerful of the claimed roles and should be left alive when Adele suggested getting rid of all the power roles. Remember? I'm the one who said that if you're going to be half of the lynching/vigging victims, you MUST be the viggee, not the lynchee to preserve your protection another night. Remember? And make sure to remember that this entire idea of you being on the chopping block comes courtesy of the masonry -- specifically Adele -- NOT me.

Stop and think, man. I don't want you dead

at all

. I prefer to prove myself by offing someone without powers. But, as you said earlier, the masons are kind of running the show right now and my choice is to voice my dissent while, basically, being forced to comply (or be lynched) if none of the other three of you want to come up with a different plan.

One more time: My preferences are no-lynching and me increasing the "town to scum" actions by me excercising my vig ability tonight. I'll gladly take vigging orders from the majority of all players -- not just the trifecta. But there

must

be input before that can possibly happen.

I'm just AMAZED that your intent is to vote ME. If you're sticking with that, fully explain your thought process so that it's on record. Just agreeing with a three-person group that will happily see me dead with no more than an "oops!" tomorrow shouldn't cut it at this point.

[MeMe]

Oh gosh. I'm embarrassed at the grammar/spelling in that post. Typing in shock doesn't become me.

[MeMe]

Also -- just in case it was missed by all (and it seems to have been) --

IF there is a baddie in the masonry and IF that baddie has investigation protection, then the masons being told that they can count on the townieness of their brothers is moot. The mod saying anything other than, basically, "trust your masons" would compromise the role.

And chaotic_diablo mentioned someone double-dealing against Fat Sam. Does ANYONE have information on that? Is this truly in the movie? Does anyone know the name of the role that does that?

[MeMe]

Here's the deal...the masons are obviously going to keep saying "we're not scum" and using their three-strong voice to keep each other out of the noose. As Adele pointed out, all four of the non-masons have to agree if we want a mason lynched -- much harder for us than for them.

Basically, if one of the non-masons dies and isn't scum, they'll go after another non-mason. If that non-mason isn't scum either, they'll go the next one, etc. and nothing will be able to stop them after today unless they lose at least one member before tomorrow.

Basically, if we let them -- they will be the last three standing and I think it's more than plausible that the scum is hiding among them.

So. I revise my earlier "what I want" statement. I think we should no-lynch today OR lynch a mason. If we lynch a non-mason who turns out to be town, we should vig a mason. I'm not comfortable

at all

with letting them gain the majority -- the rest of us may as well just stop playing at that point as our opinions won't mean a thing in the face of their numbers. Great if they're all town, but I don't trust it.

As for Maz talking -- that so irritates me because I can't help but analyze what he might be trying to do. It comes after the "must not lynch Fritz" post, and he says "you know it to be true." What? That we must not lynch Fritzler? And does that make it less likely that Fritzler's scum with Maz since Maz is trying to pretend he's tied to Fritzler?

Question to the mod

: is Maz out of line or did his role allow him a postmortem post?

[MeMe]

Question:

Did all the masons get information in their PMs about this extra ability? Or did just one get the information and tell the others about it?

[MeMe]

So -- you're saying that it obviously appeared in both yours and Adele's PMs? What about broomhead?

[MeMe]

@MeMe: I checked. broomhead knew.

I'm sure you're about to present a pro-town reason for wanting to know... y'know, since you're asking if broomhead and I (who you don't trust) are able to verify Fritzler (either the most or second most trusted person in the game).

Um...well...that's not at all how it went down now IS it.

Fritzler answered first -- but my question was posed to

all

masons. My thoughts were that if, say, only one person had this "ability" (let's say a daykill ability) that THAT person could actually be scum/SK with an ability who decided to present it to the other two as though it was an ability for all the masons to decide how to use together. That's apparently

not

the case, since everyone's claiming to have had it in their PM. But once Fritzler answered, I thought that perhaps it was the other way 'round -- that if broomhead didn't have it (which could still be technically possible unless he mentioned it to you BEFORE you mentioned it to him), that it might be a pro-town ability for the two masons that you could have kept secret from the interloper. I'm actually rather surprised no one questioned you all on it before I got here as three person mason group is plenty strong WITHOUT any kind of an ability. I'm sure that anyone can see that the question had actual purpose.

Now

try to make me look anti-town for asking it. Incredible that you seem to be putting forth the case that it's LESS weird for non-masons to say "oh -- OK. Thank you." than "wait -- let's get the WHOLE story."

And, technically, it's still possible that ONLY you had it in your PM since, from what I've heard, you're the one who brought it up -- but I'm not of the mind that it'd make sense for all three of you to be scum together, so there's no reason that I can see for the other two to cover for you (unless that's what the "what we talked about" overnight meant).

Also, MeMe, you haven't commented on this

I support no lynch. I'll investigate Pariah, he'll protect me. If Pariah's role is cleared, Adele is most likely confirmed as well. If I die, Pariah is scum. Meme will kill either Tamuz or Broomhead. If neither of them die, Meme is scum. If Meme is our scum, she will be forced to kill one of them or be revealed.

I'm also obviously interested in whether you'd be okay with giving broomhead a chance (say 50/50) of not being your nightkill with this plan.

Well, Adele, that was deliberate. As should have been obvious, I had a question pending about the mason ability claim that rather affects what I think should be done.

I'm on record as being for no lynch or mason lynch (which was somehow left out of the c_d quote above). I PREFER the no-lynch -- are you no longer as strongly against that as you were before?

As for the Tamuz or Broomhead vigging -- since I think now, more than ever, that the scum is likely to be among the masons, I'd at least like the vig target to include the possibility of YOU being my target. So, I'd like it to be 33-33-33 Tamuz, Broomhead, you as the options. Someone else can choose it so I won't be "left to my own devices" -- but I think it makes quite a bit of sense for you to be in the mix.

[MeMe]

@Meme, Adele shouldn't be a vig choice. I don't see how killing her will solve anything.

If she's scum or SK, it will solve quite a bit.

But, since broomhead posted since my post with him as a kill option but NOT Adele, that says to me that he considers himself more likely scum than she (!). So, I'm cool with the 50/50 plan.

And I need an answer, masons:

Do I have a guarantee that there will be no interference

?

[MeMe]

OK - that sounds good.

I'll just do the coin toss in 1 minute -- 11 p.m. EST Feb. 14.

[MeMe]

Well she could re flip it and kill broomhead.

No -- go look at the site. All past tosses are shown -- I don't get to flip it.

[MeMe]

vote: no lynch

[MeMe]

Nope, I targeted broomhead. I don't have a deathwish.

I'm gonna confirm with vIQles right now that my choice was received and processed.

[MeMe]

vIQles confirms my choice was received.

Go ahead and lynch me, though. I don't really care that much anymore.

[MeMe]

Oh, I take that back. I can't

not

care, dammit. As frustrating as this game is, quitting isn't in my blood.

1) Why does Adele's death "prove" the masonry? If one of them's scum -- targeting an innocent portion of the masonry is a smart move for that scum when they've been told "if broomhead dies and is innocent, you'll be believed."

2) Why didn't my kill work? If I were scum, I'd have definitely targeted broomhead so that I a) wouldn't be the automatic lynchee today and b) I'd been told that whatever secret ability the masons are claiming wouldn't be used to stop the kill.

3) Follow me here...
--If you believe I'm the sole remaining scum, you'd have to attribute Adele's death to me
--With the masons claiming an ability, going after ANY of them (other than broomhead) was risky, since their secret power could be a doc ability or that one of them had nightkill immunity or whatever
--This says, to me, that her killer KNEW FOR SURE that she was killable last night. Who'd know that? A fellow mason.

4) Besides the masons, I can only see Tamuz as a scum possibility. His claimed ability is impossible to prove/corroborate and I can definitely see "Bugsy Malone" as a mod-provided safe claim for Dapper Dan. chaotic would have to be a genius to have come up with the bookstore thing on his own and Pariah's role name is now confirmed by c_d (just like mine, btw). Also, I'm thinking that Adele was the probable target two nights ago and it was Pariah's protection that saved her (something the killer KNEW was directed elsewhere last night).

5) What would have been the point of all that "I can prove my role" and demanding confirmation from the masons that they WOULDN'T screw with my vigging before going into night if I weren't going to

do

it? Surely you can see that I'd have left open the door to blame them for my kill NOT working in the way that was promised, i.e. NOT getting them to go on record that they wouldn't interfere beforehand, if I were lying?! Making them agree before entering night only means that I basically stole that line of argument away from myself if I was hoping to use it (and, if I'm scum planning not to kill the designated target, I'd have KNOWN I'D NEED IT).

In summary: my top suspect is broomhead. I think he's got some kind of godfather protection going on -- and his post saying he's got a surefire way to prove my role isn't my role is unnecessarily cryptic (read: ridiculous). We were all happy to have him die last night

along with

the mafia kill, remember? I say we lynch him today and see what's so special about him that he

didn't

die overnight.

vote: broomhead

[MeMe]

I don't get why on earth you three would agree to not interfere with my vig kill so that I could prove myself...but then say you attempted to KILL ME -- proof be damned, apparently. I'd love to know how would you have explained things tomorrow if Adele, broomhead and I wound up dead, Fritzler, 'cause that's

exactly

what would have happened if my kill AND the one you're claiming the masons tried had gone through...and considering that it was being passed about yesterday that we might still be looking at a two-person scum group...well...I think that qualifies as hubris, baby. Of course, if you're IN the scum group, you'd want us whittled down and fast.

Did you check with vIQles to be sure he got your choice? Did one person have to carry it out? If so,

who did

? Did anyone block any of the masons? Could my vig kill and the masons attempt to kill me have cancelled each other out somehow?

This game is seriously getting on my nerves.

[MeMe]

Fritzler -- as far as I know I'm not nightkill immune. As far as you two say,

broomhead

isn't either and yet, somehow, HE'S still breathing.

As far as I'm concerned, it's you two who better start explaining why on earth you thought you could make a decision to kill me. You're the ones guilty of going off-script, not me.

[MeMe]

It's interesting how you all dictated a script for the rest of us to follow -- but think yourselves above having to stick to YOUR part (don't interfere with MeMe's kill). Or do you think that killing MeMe isn't the same as not interfering with my vigging? Because I'd say it's pretty obvious that the result says otherwise.

I don't know if I can speak for the rest of the non-masons, but I'm

amazed

at your lack of concern about what's good for the town. If we're to believe that all three of you are innocent, then it SHOULD be obvious to you that broomhead and Adele and me should all be dead today. Which means that you three would be responsible for there being just four people left -- and three innocents (rather than the agreed-upon two) dead. I mean...were you hoping for a "good job masons"? And your attempt to make me still being alive equal an indication that I'm lying scum thereby justifying your attempt to kill me is circular at best. Basically, if I were dead, you'd have to concede that I'm innocent and you'd be...um...what's the word...oh yeah,

IDIOTS

!

Well, I guess we're stuck waiting on you to relay vIQles' answer to you and wondering why broomhead decided not to show his face in here despite the fact he's been around elsewhere since I voted him.

[MeMe]

Read more carefully. I said that if I'd wound up dead, you'd be idiots for killing me.

Don't you agree?

[MeMe]

Like I said: hubris.

[MeMe]

And my point of view is well-represented in the thread.

You're way too overpowered for all three of you to be town -- and that was

before

you claimed multi-kill vigging capabilities. If you're town, I don't see how you're so trusting of broomhead (and vice versa).

[MeMe]

I have a bit of a problem with any pro-town player having "no trouble losing" this game for

any

reason.

That said, I still put broomhead AND Tamuz over you in suspiciousness.

[MeMe]

Did you get a response yet?

[MeMe]

oh my word -- does that LYNCH ME? Without even waiting to hear what the mod reports back??

What the hell!!

[MeMe]

Oh, wait. It takes four to lynch, sorry for the freak out -- I just couldn't believe that came without any warning. Shocked the hell out of me.

c_d -- big mistake. BIG mistake. I'm not scum. Please unvote me. If either Tamuz or Pariah is scum, I'll die as soon as either of them logs on. PLEASE UNVOTE ME.

[MeMe]

Oh wait...I guess that's not necessarily true. If there's just one scum left, immediately lynching me doesn't win the game and they'll have to explain tomorrow. The problem comes if there are two scum left and either Tamuz or Pariah are half of the duo.

c_d, please give more information about why you've come to the decision that I'm the right vote. At least put it out there for examination if I

do

get lynched and the game has a tomorrow.

[MeMe]

Um, as I said earlier, this is one game that I don't really mind being lynched in. I'll keep fighting, but it's not so much a case of "how can you not see I'm innocent" as "stupid set-up" if I

do

die. I'm smart enough to see that I've played this extremely well (I mean, I'm still alive DESPITE broomhead angling for my death from

day one

...ponder on that a moment...) and it's just bad luck that I'm being lynched.

You're sitting there claiming "golden role that must be believed despite its unbelievability" -- wouldn't you say that a little unfair for everyone else? Even if you ARE innocent?

One thing I will point out though, c_d (and Tamuz and Pariah) -- if you allow broomhead to survive when he was THE ONE PERSON THE TOWN AGREED SHOULD DIE LAST NIGHT -- there's no getting rid of him. Apparently, he's unkillable. And guess what? It'll be you three going down one by one until the scum is found. If you're not scum, tough crap 'cause Fritzler and broomhead aren't about to lynch or "vig" themselves. Let the masons run the show right on into the ground.

Unbelievable. At the very least, the smarter play than lynching me would be another no-lynch. Let the masons vig me and me vig broomhead. If it doesn't work again, at least we'll have that information.

[MeMe]

Not the SK -- of course I'm the final scum.

Couple things though: I have no idea why c_d got a Lena Marelli result on me because it's something I made up myself -- not a mod-provided safe claim. I was pretty amazed when c_d confirmed my role.

Another thing: I'm not nightkill immune, as far as I know, so I also have no idea why I wasn't dead last night or the night before.

And, just for kicks and giggles so that you all can marvel at what we, as a mafia group, were up against...here's my role PM.

You are 'Dandy Dan - Gang Boss'.

You and your gang of thugs are trying to take New York. Armed with the newly invented 'Splurge Guns', you suddenly have the upper hand against your no. 1 rival: Fat Sam.

Your war has not been going well up to this point - most of your gang have either been hit with custard pies or have run away - leaving you with only Foolster41 and N_lich to do your dirty work.

Your goal is the elimination of Fat Sam's gang and the patrons of Fat Sam's Grandslam Speakeasy.

You have the one time ability to splurge a member of your own gang. This should remain a secret to your thugs.

You, Foolster41 and N_lich may talk at night

Each night you will PM me the name of the player that you want your thugs to splurge.

So...my special power was to

kill one of my two goons overnight.

And, this was the exchange when I asked vIQles how it worked...

Is this a night or "any time" ability? Is it in addition to our regular night kill?

Night time only. You don't have to use this ability. Making an example of one of your gang will replace the night kill.

If I'm the only one left, I

can

still act at night, right?

Although it is very out of character for you to do your own dirty work, you may still splurge at night if ALL your gang is dead. Also if you die, the gang may submit a night choice, but they will have to reach a concensus.

And do I have any other benefit as the gang boss? Immunity to night-kill and/or investigation?

No Coment.

So, I could kill one of the goons but it REPLACED THE NIGHTKILL ENTIRELY. That's a "special power"? And when I asked about immunity, I got "no comment" but the masons got "oh, yeah -- you guys are entirely innocent. Don't let scum confuse that issue for you!" Gah.

I'm obviously not a fan of the set-up, but I commend vIQles for being such a good sport. I sent him PM after PM with subject lines such as "Do NOT open unless you

enjoy

being bitched out."

So, nice job town. I hope I at least gave you all your money's worth. I also applaud Foolster41 and Maz Medias for trying their best in an impossible situation...I mean, N_lich bailed when it was apparent this was unwinnable for us!

[MeMe]

All I know is that scum lost, so it's someone

else's

problem to figure this out now.

[MeMe]

In fairness -- our "awful" roleclaims were rather necessary since there were limited roles from which to choose and we couldn't claim

obvious

ones. Razamataz would've been great, sure, if we'd KNOWN FOR SURE he didn't already exist in the set-up. Not to nitpick, but the set-up was the main thing that "lost the game for the mafia."

As for shutting down the mass role claim...um...I "supported" it on day one. And I rather think I made a helluva lot of pro-town sense when I tried to stop it on day two. Remember, the person arguing hardest for it to continue was a

mason

, who had quite a bit more information -- and therefore knew it would only help a group of three confirmeds -- than the rest of the town did.

I mean,

please

.

The cops? Backup was bad enough...but for him

also

to get all prior results was ridiculous.

I'm also kind of skeptical about that mod note under my role above as c_d didn't immediately get a result for me -- I had to prod you to give him one. At the very least, I should've been told that the cop would see whatever I told him to see, then my role claim could've been a LOT more assured. I could've claimed

anyone

and had the cop investigation back me up...but I was completely unaware of that angle. Like I said, the majority had assurances and powers -- while the minority was in the dark. It's backwards mafia.

I do, once again, commend you for sticking with this and doing what you could to balance things after the fact -- but I'm a little miffed that you're trying to make our play look poor. Once the mass roleclaim was suggested by Alexander and confirmed by you as being good for the town, we were pretty much screwed.

[MeMe]

Alexander -- you're a scary player. You made my heart pound every time I saw you as the last post in here. You and Adele...

[MeMe]

And I'm on the

other

side -- but I concur that you shouldn't be shamed...I get pissy sometimes because I like to WIN, that's all!

This was certainly a lively and fun game and letting us play it out was stellar modding.

[MeMe]

last post