Mafia 42: Italian - Game over!

[Illumina]

I've been occupied with midterms, but I'm around.

No real evidence at this point, though I've not seen a lot of real discussion happening either.

I'll go with a general

no lynch

vote for now, until we get some meaningful evidence.

[Illumina]

I figured someone would comment on my going against the grain. I was actually tempted to vote for Lying (would have saved me from being "suspicious" and been a solid move from a townsperson and mafia perspective) but as I said, there's just not enough reason to suspect yet.

It's just probability - higher chance of killing off a townsperson than mafia, because there's no evidence right now, it's too embryonic.

[Illumina]

I was tempted because his actions were a bit suspicious, but not enough to warrant a vote.

[Illumina]

All I said was that it looked suspicious, but not overly.

And because I needed to defend myself simply for not voting, for lack of evidence.

[Illumina]

I was under the impression that special roles were used to get three kills - is it even possible that the mafia could make three kills again this entire game?

[Illumina]

Sorry for the noob mistake - I was aware of the special roles, but not the two mafia families variation. (I've played about 4 games before)

[Illumina]

Okay - care to elaborate on those?

[Illumina]

That would be the obvious one. I've already been open about my reasoning for it, though - I'm more curious about his other reasons for thinking I'm scum.

[Illumina]

Be fair - I'm not lurking, the end of this week was pretty hectic. Sorry for the delay.

I'll admit that the no lynch vote looks murky, that's fair enough. (I do have my reasons for it) But I disagree with most of these other supposed tells.

As to the no lynch: when you look at what was actually said, I stated that there was no evidence at that point in time. I wasn't implying that I would absolutely hold to that in light of compelling evidence. Basically, my no lynch vote was tantamount to saying "I'm not going to lynch right now". (I was also unaware of the possibility of two mafia families, which obviously changes my perspective) I'm not seeing the tangible difference between that and voting for one person only to switch to another, which has been going on (and isn't inherently suspicious in itself).

As for commenting on my decision not to vote for Lying, I was providing a defense for myself. I made what I considered a logical move (not voting), and encountered suspicion for it, hence the appeal to logic. How would you expect a townie to act differently? I'm not seeing the scum tell, here.

I'm not seeing the next tell, either. Plenty of people had called Lying suspicious at that point - again, my only reason for explaining my reasoning was to provide a defense for myself. (How else would a townie "supposed to act" given that situation? Would you have done differently?)

And that's interesting - I don't see that statement as being defensive at all. I *did* need to defend myself just for making the no lynch vote, did I not? How is that anything but an accurate statement?

I was honestly unaware of the possbility of two mafia families - the games I've played have been on other forums, where I've never encountered that variant. (I did read the faq for info on specific roles / playing styles here, but I missed the double mafia bit) My fault for not seeing it, I'm not trying to play the n00b card. If I had said that out of the blue, you'd be on to something - but as it is, I was responding to people who were surprised that I wasn't aware of it.

It seems like all I've been doing so far is providing reasoning for my decisions, because of suspicion I've run into. You're reading into a lot of my posts as being subtle as if I have something to hide, but really it's just because I'm on the defensive, having to explain my actions. Having to explain myself obviously changes the nature of my posts. What's wrong with revealing my reasoning if people are questioning it?

[Illumina]

zu_Faul, how did I not address his points...?

And Gonzo - people are saying I'm scummy because a townie doesn't analyze his actions in order to justify them. But anyone and everyone obviously does this when they're providing a defense for themselves. Just about everything I've said so far has been in response to suspicion.

How would you or another townie act any differently in my place?

[Illumina]

All right. Interesting points, and Illumina hasn't been doing much to defend himself,

Circumstantial, not intentional.

And JSexton: Bit of a harsh response, there. I'm not asking you to, and it sure seems like you're trying to dodge my question. I was honestly curious.

[Illumina]

The only problem with claiming is that it makes me a major target. That, and I don't think JSexton's arguments are valid to begin with. I'm still waiting for a response from him, as well as zu_Faul, to defend their arguments. Unless someone has a different reason than the ones JSexton listed, (which I feel I've debunked) I'd love to hear a tangible explanation for your vote. It seems like the majority of people holding onto their votes against me are doing so for flimsy reasons.

[Illumina]

I guess it's just an issue of where the burden of proof lies - since no one (to my knowledge) has given vastly different reasons than JSexton, I've basically already said why the arguments against me don't have merit when I responded to him. Still, I'll go ahead and address every one indivudually. I have a few papers to write at the moment, but I'll respond to all of it tomorrow, probably by tuesday morning at the latest.

[Illumina]

I've still not seen valid, convincing reasons for voting for me. Not one.

micigante

: So far your only reason for voting for me is because I voted no lynch. It was a temporary vote until more evidence came up (as I stated in the same post I made the vote in). But regardless, a no lynch vote != justifiable evidence to lynch anyone.

TSAGod

: In both posts I stated there wasn't enough evidence. I was a bit suspicious of Brian before making my second post, but I only brought it up after d8P put a FoS on me, in order to explain my reasoning and provide some defense for my stance. And why wouldn't a townsperson not admit the possibility of being mafia? Realistically, there's a possibility everyone's mafia - being theoretical in my explanation isn't a reason to suspect I am one.

zu_Faul

: I'm still lost. Yes, JSexton talked about my defending myself, and I responded to it. What do you mean by this? Also, I admitted the no lynch looked a bit iffy

if

you were under the impression that no lynch was my stance for the entire day, regardless of evidence, which it wasn't (I already clarified that earlier, besides this post). Since my intent was for it to be temporary, I should have just not voted at all. Error on my part, but not something that indicates being scum, per se.

Blackberry

: Unless I'm mistaken, you never did clarify why you voted for me at all, other than wanting a claim.

NanookTheWolf

: Same as Blackberry. Please explain the logic here.

Unless I missed something by mistake,

LyingBrian

,

Fritzler

,

Iammars

, and

TonyMontana

have agreed with JSexton without bringing forward unique arguments. So I'm waiting for a response from all those people: besides the no lynch vote, what would you (or a regular townie, if you prefer) have done in my place?

[Illumina]

Even if the evidence against you wasn't all that valid?

[Illumina]

I suppose I'm left with no other option, at this point.

I'm the Cowardly Reporter.

[Illumina]

I will hide tonight, then.

Each night, my role lets me either investigate someone to see if they're home or not (I assume this constitutes whether or not they make night choices) or hiding to avoid night kills. I'm obligated to post any information I find from my investigation, and I can't hide two nights in a row.

[Illumina]

Sorry, it's been an unexpectedly busy day.

I investigated Darquiel (before TSAGod replaced him) and he made no night activity.

[Illumina]

Unvote

for now.

[Illumina]

My internet was down yesterday - sorry for the delay.

There was no stipulation as to when I posted the information, as long as I did it within the day. Since I'm allowed to reveal this info in a subtle fashion (I asked to have this clarified specifically), I opted to wait a bit, so as not to let the world know my role. Staying below the radar so I could investigate without risk of being targetted seemed the way to go (that's why I waited so long before claiming, not that it did any good), but that clearly won't be happening now.

I seem to be a very popular bandwagon - people are jumping on before they even hear a response from me.

Every action I've taken has been explained - what concretely indicates that I'm mafia?

[Illumina]

I'm going out of state this weekend, but hopefully I'll have intermittent internet access.

I'll definitely be around tuesday at the very latest, if not.

[Illumina]

^ Exactly. It makes more sense to take advantage of the fact that my role's test-able, rather than killing me out of exaggerated suspicion created by this flimsy bandwagon.

Twice now I've asked the specific players voting for me to present their reasoning, and more are lurking than have bothered to reply. I wonder how many of the latter will actually respond, or if they're content to jump on a popular bandwagon and stay there.

We're at a stage where my role has been claimed, and people are still intent in killing me off. All of this because of

what

, exactly? Think about it. I've not seen nearly enough to warrant it.

(I'll still be around intermittently, I'm catching internet where I can.)

[Illumina]

I hid last night, so my role could be tested. No new information here.

[Illumina]

Gonzo: Interesting. You went from voting for me to actually defending me on day one, and you ended the day not voting for me. I claimed the cowardly reporter, and because I didn't die (as I claimed would be the case), you suddenly suspect me? What's changed since then? That doesn't add up.

FOS

Gonzo, until he adequately explains himself.

[Illumina]

Two major things, Gonzo: You were fine not voting for me yesterday (both before and after I revealed my role, during a huge bandwagon) [and also] when I said I wouldn't die, and now you go back to suspecting me because of what one person said. That seems like a pretty big inconsistancy, which is why I'm suspicious.

Also, most importantly, I didn't survive because the mafia failed to kill me - we were having a vig test the veracity of my claim. Was that an innocent typo, or were you not aware of that play?

[Illumina]

I'm not entirely sure whether Gonzo was trying to hide anything or was just unaware. He does have the tendency to switch gears at the drop of a hat, and has suggested that he's still learning how to pick up scumminess - his behavior matches someone that's new to the game, though it could be the ploy of an experienced player. Judging by his total time here (postcount of ~30), I'm thinking it's the former.

Being a new player doesn't preclude him from being mafia, obviously, but his forgetting we were vig-testing me may have been an honest mistake.

Because I'm curious, though, I'm going to put some pressure on him for now.

Vote Gonzo

[Illumina]

Now that he's claimed, I'm going to

Unvote Gonzo

.

[Illumina]

Lynching LyingBrian seems like a good play... But I'm holding my vote until tomorrow, after I have time to go back and reread a bit.

[Illumina]

What I meant in my post is that, if it came to it, I'd be comfortable lynching you as things stand right now, based on previous suspicion and Vesuvan's analysis. (My focus would have been on you initially, today, if Gonzo hadn't drawn my attention the way he did - I've been curious about you since yesterday.)

But while I think that's probably a solid play, I'd still rather have as much information on you as I can get, based on how disturbingly easy it is for pro-towns to garner suspicion in this game.

[Illumina]

Sorry for the delay. I investigated Flying Dutchman, and saw him go to Nanook's house and watch for a while, never going inside. (Though I couldn't see what he saw). Then he went back to his house where he stayed the rest of the night.

[Illumina]

School's started, so I've had less time to check this regularly - I have more time now.

At this point I think the bandwagon is pretty flimsy, especially if we're able to investigate. That said, idling with a deadline is also a bit of a risk. I'm going to read back through the thread before I make any decision.

[Illumina]

FOS

Zippy.

Firstly, you're being rude and (more specifically) impatient to lynch non-participators and lurkers. While some mafia are more than likely among the lurkers, it's still a blind guess, and one that you're unusually eager for us to try. Risky, especially when we can ID people first. This is a big source of suspicion for me.

Also, your little slip earlier doesn't help you.

[Illumina]

loFl... what slip...

Saying you were a mason just to see if people were paying attention, admitting you weren't, then saying you're confirmed. Seems weird - if its a joke, you failed to specify and I didn't follow the humor.

voting people off who aren't even f'n playing anymore needs to happen or the game continues to stagnate...

You ignored / sidestepped the reasons I presented. If someone's not participating, try to go for a replacement. We're not being productive in killing mafia if we blindly lynch someone who isn't participating. We're just as likely to waste time hitting a townie if we act without information.

please feel free to lynch me, i would rather be the lynch than sit and watch paint dry in this game for another 6 months...

If you're that dissatisfied, ask to be modkilled and find another game. I can appreciate that the stagnation annoys you, but this looks more like a stunt than anything else. The town would not be acehieving anything practical.

how much sense does it make to allow a guy who has made one post since november continue to live while we instead lynch someone who is participatiing...

The idea, first and foremost, is to find mafia, not necessarily encourage those who participate. Obviously full participation would be great, but we have to work with what we have: we have some form of information about whoever is participating, while lynching a non-participant is a blind guess (unless it spurs them to participate, or we investigate them).

I see no compelling reason to lynch blindly.

My

FOS

on Zippy remains.

[Illumina]

I obviously missed that - I get the joke, now.

However, you're still missing the point.

to say the town would not be achieving anything is quite naive, since how would you know unless you are scum...

My point still stands: from a town perspective, lynching blindly doesn't make sense. Seems to me that mafia are the ones who would encourage this, because they're the only ones who would benefit. Your message seems to be that we may as well try, becaue hey, we

might

get a positive result, and that's not going far in convincing me you're pro-town.

I see where you're coming from about participation - I think accurate discussion is the best way to move the game forward. Still, would you favor discouraging lurking generally (through lynching lurkers on principle like this) over preserving the town's chances of winning in this specific game? Frankly, I'd rather aim for a higher chance at victory.

To be clear, I'm not out to get you: I'm suspicious of you simply because of what you're suggesting, not because of language or trying to get the game going.

FOS

Zippy.

[Illumina]

Well, I've got nothing. I investigated Monty, but he never left his house.

I actually think Zu_Faul is a good move, so I suppose I'll be the finishing vote. (Not as if he can recover from this kind of wagon, in any case...)

Vote: zu_Faul

Also, I'll be out of state this weekend but hopefully I'll have time to check in.