Mafia 103 - Ktown Mafia (Game Over)

[don_johnson]

can someone please explain to me why we lynched a vig on day 1?

[don_johnson]

okay:

who should i vote for and why? please include post and/or page references. i reread the bit around the day 1 lynch. i find the fact that furry avoided the hammer to be odd. i didn't like the "i don't believe the claim" bullshit. the claim is never scummy. a persons actions are, so players voting because of disbelieveing the claim should be under scrutiny. the most common anti-town role fakeclaiming vig is and sk. it is pointless to lynch an sk on day 1. not sure why you guys didn't catch that.

856 is kind of odd as well. a two man mafia in a huge game? seems to be baseless speculation. i don't play many large games, but i think a two man mafia would just be stupid. i would guess at least three, more likely more, no?

[don_johnson]

read the game? are you kidding? 35 pages and like seventeen replacements. i don't think so. if you want my vote somewhere, tell me why and point out the relevant areas for me to read.

and no. you don't lynch a claimed vig on day 1. its stupid. you offer to manipulate their killing ability and lynch them when you need to. its a waste of a lynch and this game is rock solid proof. if you were so sure on your town read, why did you acquiesce?

[don_johnson]

what makes you think i need to read the entire game in order to find scum? scum are generally exposed in particular situations and/or by static evidence such as voting patterns. i'll read at my own pace, but i'm not going to sift through piles of shit for a diamond when there are more than enough of you who have been sifting through this shit from the beginning. if you don't want to engage me, then that's fine, but don't expect stellar contribution when you cannot reciprocate. so i will ask once more:

who should i be voting for and why?

[don_johnson]

yourself because you got a scum PM?

this is just rude. if you don't want to present me with the case you seem to have on me so that i may respond with correlated analysis, then what is my incentive to be civil with you? i don't think i'm being rude here. my question should have rendered an actual answer. i know its frustrating to deal with replacements but its important to remember that replacing in isn't ever easy.

Seriously, you are the top vote getter. If the vote counts are so useful, go look at them and tell me who is scum. You claim to of read around the end of day one, who is scum based of that?

good idea. vote count analysis is how i caught my last scum. my top two suspects at the end of day 1 were you for your avoidance of the hammer and wickedestjr who i believe flipped town.

[don_johnson]

thanks guys. yes, i have skimmed my predecessor and i can see why the slot isn't suspicion free. i don't agree with hammering the vig day 1 for starters. i am sure there has to be scum on that wagon. if there is an actual case against me, i'd like to know more about it, though i can't explain sj's actions, it may help me understand more of what's going on.

i will do the suggested iso's and present my votecount analysis later on(furry- i am not glued to my computer, when i said "good idea", i meant i'll get to it. generally, this late in the game, the largest bandwagon will contain at least one scum if not more. what i need to see is how those players have been voting. also of consequence are players consistently not on any wagon, and lone voters who pursue weak cases that will never materialize.)

[don_johnson]

one of cruelt, sir chris, and myself is scum based on voting analysis. all three of us were on both wagons. rhinox, too, but he has flipped town which then increases the odds of one of us being scum. not being me, i have to conclude that one of cruelt and sir chris is scum. i will be analyzing those two slots and posting my thoughts soon.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: just noticed both of them on my wagon. kind of ironic.

[don_johnson]

While I am usually all aboard this line of thinking, it really comes off as "I am scum and here is how I am going to get you to vote for one of the people on my lynch using logic that applies to me."

That's bad.

why is this different than "usually"? i can't help it if my predecessor drew suspicion. you also seem to be creating bias before i have even gone into any sort of analysis. why are you voting me?

[don_johnson]

I don't think it's unreasonable to be voting for a player whose slot has been scummy thoughout the game. I think it would be more unreasonable to shift votes off that slot purely because it's a different player - it doesn't change the fact that the slot has appeared scummy and it's your job to rescue the situation.

not sure what you mean here. i want to know why sir chris is voting me. i haven't made any appeal to anyone here to simply "forgive" my slot, if thats what you are implying. in order for me to "rescue" the situation i would think it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask such questions. thru strict voting analysis i find both yours and chris' slot scummy. i plan on expanding on it with further analysis.

At the end of the day we have to make our mind up based on what you do - if you're not scum (and I'm relatively happy with my vote at the moment) then you have to dissuade us.

let's give me a chance before we make up our minds, k?

[don_johnson]

I am voting for you because SJ's posts had little regard to how they voted, switching votes all the time and their logic being lacking. Also I can't take a player seriously who acts as if they know what the game is about before they read the game. You do yourself no favors. "You guys are scummy because of your voting even though I haven't read the topic." That's bad.

whatever. i nailed scum in my last game with a similar strategy. players lie. good players mislead. therefore reading isn't always the best way to scumhunt imo. scum generally follow voting patterns and it is usually the case in the course of a couple mislynches for at least one scum to be on both wagons. as i readi will note your accusations of voteswitching and see if i can't understand SJ's logic. hopefully i can find scum and in the process lighten the suspicion on myself. replacing in this late, as town, under suspicion in a game where town seems to be playing horribly is no small task. had i known the situatiuon i might have passed. my scumhunting isn't bad, but i'm not great at shedding suspicion. so, whatever. talk soon.

[don_johnson]

Hey DJ, you have a case for us yet?

no. i haven't even had time to reread anything that i haven't commented on. i am not glued to my computer. are we on a deadline here? is this whole game waiting on me? if so, you'll have to be patient.

[don_johnson]

okay. just reads from day3 start to present. goog golly i almost pissed myself. seeing as how noone really wanted to expound about the case on the solemnj slot i took it upon myself to figure this out.

sirchris went from suspecting virtually noone and actually devoting three posts to stating that stance, to voting furry on "gut". after two days, lynches, nk's etc. he starts with a "gut" vote. okay.

then he iso's solemnj and switches. did anyone notice the timestamps? five minutes. he read 65 posts in five minutes. apparently. didn't bother to give any examples of why his suspicions were founded and is now claiming that he is also voting for me because of the direct result of a conversation about vote count analysis that i was having with furry.

vote: sir chris

apparently the case against me has jack shit in regards to evidence, a bandwagon hopper(cruelty) to get the game going, and cute, but otherwise rude fuzzy cub. town has no need to be launching such a poor case on day 3 as this case against solemnj/dj.

cruelty, remove your vote. you obviously had little reason to place it in the first place. leaving it here only connects you to sirchris who is imo obvscum.

[don_johnson]

you make me laugh. the posts you quote show a logical progression of thought from solemnj in regards to his vote.

no hypocrisy here. i narrowed down my scumhunting pool by votecount analysis and find your play on day 3 more scummy than my other candidate. i don't have a "case" on you other than that you are pushing a mislynch on nothing more than hollow accusations, a fabricated iso analysis(65 posts/5 minutes), and now the granddaddy bullshit quote of all:

All I can say about your posts is you are not convincing me you are town, not that you have really actively convinced me, in your time playing, that you are scum. That was done before you entered this game.

your thoughts in my direction began on day 3 after three posts of "i don't know jack shit and am suspicious of noone."

sorry pal, but you're caught scum. score one for dj.

for reference, please see my recent game: mini 845 the amish village. i nailed scum with a similar votecount analysis. its over now, so feel free to peruse.

you guys are welcome. lets lynch this phony bastard.

[don_johnson]

so, to be clear, your defense is "facts can be manipulated"? do i have that right? have you ever heard the term "wifom"? personally i think voting trends are much more of a static type of evidence than you credit them. i am not oblivious to the dynamics of this game . you call my logic based on voting patterns bad. yet you refer to numbers in my sig to deduce my ability. you are a walking contradiction.

here have a button.

*hands sirchris a button with a picture of sirchris swinging from a tree*

[don_johnson]

also:

i have engaged cruelty. he has,of yet, failed to respond. asking me why i am "ignoring" him is scummy misrepresentation of my actions.

there are other players in this game, no?

[don_johnson]

also: if anyone needs me to expand on why sirchris is full of craplogic i am more than happy to, but the contradictions seem crystal clear imo. whenever i can explain myself without wall posting i prefer to.

sorry for the triple post.

[don_johnson]

just lost an entire post, but i really don't care. this town is lazy and apathetic and deserves to lose. sir chris is scum. he faked an iso, produced three posts which show a consistency of solemnj's stance on the previous lynch, then stated that "facts" can be manipulated and simultaneously argued that my votecount analysis was invalid due to that while his analysis of me was based on numbers in my sig, which(for all he knows) could be random. but his read is right and mine is wrong because the rules that apply to me don't apply to him. way to go. if this is your best effort, i'm outta here.

[don_johnson]

yay! some activity...

still very much liking my vote. sir chris as even gone so far as to admit some validity to my points he so summarily dismissed. not only does he buddy me by flipping his read, he also moves his vote to my other vocalized top suspect from my voting analysis. the only saving grace there is cruelty's lacklustre response. but i am perfectly happy if my top two suspects want to slug it out for a while.

kunkstar: yes, town will come to a deadline lynch with barely any direction with posts like that. "hmm, i don't have anything to say, but it looks like we could just lynch the lead bandwagon..." if sirchris' behavior is "unexpected" how do you correlate it to your town read of him?

furry: 916 is as useless(if not moreso) as the post it quotes. what are your reads on sirchris and cruelty and what do you think of the recent vote shift?

^^ same question to mikeburnfire.

very much liking faraday and am in line with most of their thoughts. just realizing that kunk somewhere claimed early. do we have a page number for reference? i am going to try and go back through this thread a bit more and see what fits and doesn't as now i feel i have some solid reads.

i thought this game had more players. is there any one slot seriously devoid of content?

[don_johnson]

thanks far, i'll check on those.

sirchris: "admitting" is not a scumtell. perhaps i shouldn't have used the word "validity", as reading your more recent post(927) i see you are still taking a condescending approach to my ability and analysis. just bacuase someone doesn't articulate an idea well, doesn't negate the value of said idea. neither you nor cruelty have managed to ease my suspicion of you with your recent actions. i don't appreciate the "he's so dumb he can't be scum" logic. my points about my wagon and the nonexistent case that was presented are valid.

As soon as wicked flipped my trust in Kunk and Cruelty mostly went out the window, that's what we learned.

interesting. you pressured neither of them on day 3. in fact, you posted sparingly over several pages without expressing suspicion of anyone in particular. in that span, faraday and furry both expressed willingness to lynch solemnj with vague suspicions put forth by both cruelty and mikeburnfire. so i guess you learned something, but i guess i am having trouble seeing where you applied what you learned.

[don_johnson]

i have to side with cruelty in cruelty vs. heilo. 985 is a perfect example of "active lurking".

i still don't see a reason to move from sir chris. i want to reread today. i will try and get something up later. school started for me again last thursday, but it shouldn't be a problem(just my first priority).

[don_johnson]

i wish i was better spoken as i think i have scum nailed in sir chris. i need to reread this bit on kirbyoshi as it seems that the argument has taken on a new angle which i don't quite understand. overdefensiveness at L-1 is a town tell to me, L-4 not so much...

[don_johnson]

Lurking a bit now?

no. any other questions?

[don_johnson]

i didn't see anything wrong with kirbbyoshi's initial post. sir chris' rebuttal contains a semantics argument of WIFOM but misses the context in which kirbyoshi is using it. i think sir chris is scum and is overcompensating for his scummy vote pattern by wall posting poor arguments with the idea that the quantity of words will outweigh the quality of what he is saying. i don't like the too much confidence argument. confidence often secures a lynch when reason cannot. at best its null tell.

sir chris > heilo > kirbyoshi

[don_johnson]

Yes, confidence secures lynches when reason cannot - they are usually called mislynches.

i already offered evidence to the contrary. you chose to ignore it. you are making up implied statistics by saying "usually".

why are we not wagoning this guy?

oh that's right. furry's afraid to be connected to people who

might

flip scum.

mod: i am okay with a deadline extension.

[don_johnson]

nice appeal to authority.

i have experience too.

i have learned that if i bang my head long enough i can break through walls.

[don_johnson]

obligatory prod response. i'll comment later tonight. have to get kids in bed.

[don_johnson]

is heilo even around? i think he replaced out of another game not too long ago.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: heilo

fuck it, this game is dying. if you guys are wrong, can we lynch sir chris tomorrow?

[don_johnson]

of course you are.

vote: sir chris

[don_johnson]

unvote

i think i get what you are saying. i have been having trouble accessing the site, but i think no lynch may be worth exploring as this is the type of situation where it can be beneficial. three player scum team makes this a mislynch and lose day, right?

kirb: heilo wasn't coming back. read to me as dissaffected vanilla or caught scum. there was no indication of a replacement or extension. the lynch was inevitable. i wanted sc. others wanted you. neither of those wagons were happening and a late power role claim would have had to have uber helpful results to save heilo. i didn't see it happening.

[don_johnson]

no lynch is generally executed with little to no discussion as the idea is to give scum as little info as possible going into night. its odd that furry has kind of half assed claimed here and is now pushing a no lynch. i do, however, see the benefit of doing so if he is town.

ck: its most likely mylo. mass claim or no lynch are the two viable strategies. casting doubt on both of them is nonsensical.

everyone has chimed in and noone has claimed 100% scum on any other player.

Vote: No Lynch

no twilight talk, please.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: sorry, ck. i misread your post. strike my statement to you.

[don_johnson]

i am vanilla.

is there anywhere to get a quick rundown of set-ups for games this size? i'm gonna poke around a bit and do some iso. Sir Chris' chances of being town are now officially rather good.

[don_johnson]

whoa there kitty. not sure if you are misunderstancing kunk or misrepresenting. his post in clearly in response to cruelty's question. it doesn't read as though he is implying either of you or cruelty is scum. the question was "if neither of you are lying"...

as far as set-up goes, i have problems with both claims. imo roleblocker is much more typical of a scum role, but that ventures on outguessing the mod. however, furry's willingness to claim is either a ballsy scum gambit(if he is scum rb) or a townie trying to be forthcoming. claiming first is always protown. i.e. regardless of set-up it benefits town more than scum.

cruelty's claim comes conveniently after furry's and results coincide. what puzzles me most is this:

most likely scenario is 3 scum. in 3 scum you are most likely guaranteed at least one power role. power roles generally can't take action and kill in the same night. which means scum team members have a 66% chance of moving at night. given the fact that cruelty claims to have gotten no movement on SC night 2, why so willing to lynch him on day 3? just seems like it goes against the odds. his opening vote on me was weak sauce with little to no follow-up. i will have to reread yesterday for a more accurate picture.

i doubt both claims are true.

[don_johnson]

what guarantee did you have that you'd be alive today? if you thought he was claiming tracker, the optimal play would have been to force mass claim. if you turned up dead and flipped tracker, scumfurry could easily claim something else. thats two poor decisions you now own.

[don_johnson]

ok. i call for a mexican standoff. heres the rules:

1) in your next post you place a vote.
2) you must choose who you think is scummiest.
3) you may not choose a player who has already been voted for.
4) any player who places a second vote on a player who already has one vote should be autolynched.
5) kirby has a vote, i'm going now, the player i vote goes next, that player goes next etc.
6) once all votes are placed, we go in order and explain our votes as succintly as possible.
7) any player who doesn't comply within 36 hours by placing a vote, is autolynched. if town can't pull this together then we don't deserve the win.

vote: cruelty

cruelty, you're up. you may not self vote and you may not vote kunk.

[don_johnson]

Ironically im just about ready to vote for DJ for even suggesting that

that's the idea. i got the feeling you'd vote for me when i voted cruelty. and i see no reason to excuse cruelty's play at this stage of the game. therefore i suggest the mexican standoff method to avoid a quicklynch and get everyone participating. however, its not your turn yet. kunk can vote after someone votes kirby or me. trust me. participation is going to be key to figuring this out.

[don_johnson]

Just to be crystal clear, you think cruelty is scum just because he claimed tracker?

clear as granite countertops. what thread are you reading? first, i have listed multiple reasons for my thought process. second. part of the rules of the mexican standoff are providing reasons

after

everyone has voted. stop being such a stick in the mud.

[don_johnson]

not believing his claim is not the same as voting him because he claimed tracker. when you match the claim with the in thread play, it doesn't read proper. once everyone has laid down a vote, i will present my reasoning in a more understandable fashion.

what are you worried about? just follow the rules i laid out. would you rather that noone participates in today's discussion?

cruelty, you're up.

[don_johnson]

no. please refer to rule number 5.

5) kirby has a vote, i'm going now, the player i vote goes next, that player goes next etc.

i am clearly within the bounds of the rules.

so i take it that you are in the "lets just let everybody lurk until town screws up" club with furry?

[don_johnson]

you are really missing the boat on the cruelty case. i will explain the case further when the standoff is complete.

why do you think cruelty is town?

[don_johnson]

votes come first. cases come after.

why is this such an issue for you guys? i'm suggesting an organized plan for participation. we need to lynch correctly today, no? forcing everyone to contribute can only help.

furry: "Have had a town read on him most of the game, the claim doesnt change anything," is not an acceptable answer to the question "why do you think cruelty is town?" please try again.

[don_johnson]

Furry, Kunk, Cruelty, and myself have expressed that we don't like your "Mexican" way of doing things. If you want to withhold your cases, that's fine, but don't expect to stay alive long.

you got something against mexicans? the idea behind the plan is to avoid a quick lynch and force everyone to participate. noone has explained

why

they think this is abad idea.

cruelty fit the bill for suspects when i entered the game. he was on both original townie wagons. he was voting me with no reasoning when i replaced in. he then switched to SC, whom he claims to have had 66% clear. then, he thinks someone is claiming his role and instead of pushing for mass claim he votes no lynch. then his results semi clear a couple vanillas and the other claimed power role who seems to be blindly trusting him without any in thread reasoning other than "i have a town read on him."

i think both our power roles are gambiting scum at this point.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: furry

you, sir, are in violation of rule # 4:

4) any player who places a second vote on a player who already has one vote should be autolynched.

not only that. you are summarily ignoring my requests for more explanation of your "town" read on cruelty. in fact, you don't even seem to be accepting the possibility that he is gambiting scum.

kunk was the suboptimal vote. if you were town you could have voted me(as you have us both marked as scum), but instead you chose the player who already has a vote on them thus bringing us closer to lynch in lylo. meanwhile, we have two prods going out. what's the rush? both you and kirby have failed to explain why you have an issue with the mexican standoff. are you afraid of having to explain yourself?

[don_johnson]

I think you, sir, are the one who is afraid to explain himself. You're pretty much forcing everyone to place a vote before you explain your cases.

Withholding of scumtells, especially at lylo, only helps scum

.

first: try and come up with your own style.

second: i have explained my cases. both of them upon request. they were to be detailed at the end of the standoff. by not being allowed to vote for a player who has been voted, it forces everyone to "build" their own case. hence, no piggybacking allowed.

in regards to the bolded: who is "witholding scumtells" and how does it only help scum?

please answer: how does the mexican standoff help scum? give me a reason. all you and furry are doing is saying you don't "like" the idea. you have not come up with one scenario where it actually hurts town. don't you see the benefit in forcing

every single player

to contribute to scumhunting in what is most likely a lylo situation?

half the game has not come out against the strategy. i am not "pushing" the strategy. i will abandon it as soon as a rational reason to abandon it is presented.

for the record:

Scummiest out of the three imo.

this was your reasoning at the time of your vote. pretty weak sauce to be getting your panties in a bunch over my "lack of" explanation when this is all you had to say with your vote. seeing as how furry broke the rules, the standoff is effectively over, so feel free to explain your case.

[don_johnson]

kunk wasn't against the plan. lern2read.

Um, you are withholding scumtells by not giving your full case on cruelty. It helps only scum because scum can basically vote for whomever they want to, and if we do the "standoff" thing, town cannot say anything against their vote, since they haven't heard the case yet.

no. i laid out the "scumtells". even if i hadn't, you'd get them once the voting is over. town isn't supposed to say anything about the votes. not sure if you completely understand the process of mexican standoff.

everyone votes.

then everyone explains.

a 36 hour time limit makes it so that each player would have to participate and we wouldn't be left without reasons.

you are worried that with my plan "scumcould just vote whoever they want to". who do you suggest scum vote for then, if not for "who they want to"? don't you think there might be some benefit by getting scum to vote and then forcing them to offer reasons for their vote? it would give us material to analyze. are you against information?

your rebuttal is borderline retarded. when you have something useful to say, lay it out there. otherwise, go ahead and EXPLAIN

YOUR

VOTE. you see, you completely ignored the section of my post which asked for

your

reasoning.

as for me not explaining: post 1232 details the vote on furry. post 1230 details the vote on cruelty. are you just ignoring my posts and hoping noone notices your asscrack arguments? or are you just chainsawing for your buddy?

[don_johnson]

I dont think he is gambiting scum. I dont need to explain a town read. Burden of proof is on you. Its YOUR job to prove him scum, not MY job to prove him town.

okay. one more time for the slow kid. "cruelty voted my slot day3 without a case, then moved to SC even though he had SC 66% clear. then, when he thought someone was claiming his role he voted no lynch as opposed to mass claim." no town motivation for either of those moves.

You are both scum. If cruel gets in here and says he wants you lynched im going to move my vote. Putting kunk at L-2 though has a better chance at driving out third scum then putting a first vote on you.

a. i am not scum. b. how does this "drive out third scum"?

Here is why what you are proposing is really bad

-It allows people to put out suspicions in a way that can be manipulated. Any order of claiming or voting allows scum to make a much more optimal move, and in a lylo situation this is dangerous. The order is a reason you normally see a 'popcorn' method in claiming instead of 'whoever posts next claims'.

if you'd read the rules properly you would realize that it was a "popcorn" style. not who posts next. whoever gets voted has to vote next.

If we had a "everyone is voting X or Y already" then its a more feaseable strategy if the order is predetermined in order so the swing vote (concensus town read) votes last. There is way to much that can go wrong with forcing votes though, so we arent going to do it.

again. you fail to produce a scenario where anything "goes wrong". if everyone votes someone else and noone has more than one vote, how can anything "go wrong"?

So also now im a scum RB who has only been targeting scum reads and targeting claimed VT players?

tbh, your claim and targets make way more sense to me than cruelty's. probably part of why i was leaning scum on him in the first place. i don't like you pairing me with kunk and i certainly can't grasp why you would be against such a clever gambit like the mexican standoff.

unvote, vote cruelty

i don't like the fact that players are lurking today. has anyone made an actual case on kunkstar? if so, can we get a post reference or something. i'm going to iso kirby in the meantime.

[don_johnson]

i'll be back in this asap. had finals at the end of last week and just started clinicals, so yeah. still don't like cruelty on reread. 948 targets SC. when called on it by SC, cruelty says he's mainly suspicious of kunk, then votes heilo in the next post. odd behavior to say the least, but i need to finish looking this over. if SC is scum, he is scum with cruelty. same as if furry is scum. i.e. the common denominator in my scummy pairings seems to be cruelty by a landslide. more later.

[don_johnson]

i'm not feeling the

either/or fallacy

.

[don_johnson]

sc/cruel/kunk. in fact, any combination of two with kunk. oh. i get it.

vote: kunkstar7

i don't see a kirby/furry pairing.

[don_johnson]

why? i don't see you and kirby as paired. neither of you can be scum alone, so either you are paired, or kunk is scum. if you would rather lynch cruelty, we can do that, but one scum is as good as another today. its just painfully obvious that kunkstar is 100% scum. no other reason for this to be dragging with him at L-2 other than a kirby/furry pairing, which i just can't see. would you prefer we sit around and hold hands until deadline?

[don_johnson]

gg scum buddies! town was really in dissarray going into lylo. i think we had two choices for nk. CK seemed way more upset about the no lynch, so we went with him. quicktopic is here

[don_johnson]

i certainly did my best to make my kunk vote look like a bus. i figured if the winds changed that i would be the most likely scum to get lynched.

oh yeah. killing town rhinox is generally a good move. i wasn't part of it, but i approve.