Mafia 42: Italian - Game over!

[Vesuvan]

Oh cool, this game's gotten started, now I've got to remember who I killed last night...

Oh yeah... random

Vote: Yosarian

[Vesuvan]

Oh I'm gonna

kill

someone for that.

And

Unvote

, Not at all random

Vote: BabyJesus

[Vesuvan]

This sucks - I can't make my really long posts (TM), though I guess that makes some people happy...

Unvote, Vote: Peacebringer

for good reason. :/

[Vesuvan]

Damn restriction!

Pooky's defensive, but not all that scummy IMO.

Jabroni's full of it (false dilemma, etc). Peacebringer is probably scum. Not sure on BabyJ.

[Vesuvan]

Thinking it over a little more and which of the most suspicious people is more likely to be scum,

Unvote: Peacebringer, Vote: Jabroni

[Vesuvan]

Jabroni's backpedalling now. Just lynch the scum (/not actually IS, just under posting restriction)

[Vesuvan]

admitting you're wrong is considered "backpedaling" nowadays

So now you're misrepresenting the argument of the guy with the posting restriction. Nice.

[Vesuvan]

I'd vote for Micagante, but that's too stupid to be a scum ploy.

Post 189 summarises my position on Jabroni well.

[Vesuvan]

Okay - care to elaborate on those?

What's the bet he starts with "No Lynch"?

[Vesuvan]

Illumina's playing really badly, but the speed that bandwagon's moving looks like it's scum-driven.

[Vesuvan]

No, but the rate at which people have climbed on-board disturbs me. The analysis is a good indicator but not foolproof.

[Vesuvan]

exactly as i expected...

*raises eyebrow*

You

expected

that? Explain?

[Vesuvan]

Unvote, Vote: Illumina

[Vesuvan]

I'm obligated to post any information I find from my investigation.

The time taken for this to happen is why I don't believe him.

[Vesuvan]

Given his claim Jabroni might not be a good lynch. I'd like to test his claim by having him investigate me tonight.

[Vesuvan]

so ur claiming Mason?

Well, either that or I'm setting a trap to catch Jabroni in a lie.

[Vesuvan]

one game where a GF was able to do this.

Mafia Vengeance (Misetings). Godfather also roleblocker.

Hate to say this, but agree with BabyJesus.

[Vesuvan]

I assume there's some type of vig with multiple shots. It's only going to take one.

Thanx, scum.

Vigs aren't Masons.

[Vesuvan]

To clarify on my earlier post: Illumina is not necessarily cleared easily, and if Jabroni can't prove himself tonight, lynch him tomorrow.

[Vesuvan]

You said it would only take 1 vig to test Illumina. That either requires vig claim now or vigs knowing who other vigs target.

[Vesuvan]

I took it as assuming there's at least one vig in this game...

If

that's what he meant, then that's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

[Vesuvan]

Probably important to point out: this new Jabroni wagon is the scummiest action all game.

Unvote, Vote: JSexton

This should sort out Illumina too.

[Vesuvan]

BJ: It's between JSexton, Zu Faul and Dutchman - worst reasons re. Jabroni. Decided JSexton because of Illumina wagon, though any of those three are fine.

[Vesuvan]

Like Pooky for one

Pooky's not voting Jabroni.

Unvote, Vote: BabyJesus

. This tells us a lot about Fitzler too. Actually, becoming pretty sure Fitzler scum.

[Vesuvan]

InHim, you suspect a trap? I can see that possibility.

Unvote: BabyJesus, Vote: Fritzler

*apologises to BabyJ if that was in fact a trap*

[Vesuvan]

Thanks for explaining what I couldn't due to restriction, Yos.

Fritzler, you just convinced me: you really are scum.

[Vesuvan]

Hmm, I'm a townie

Oh, really? Well, if you say so then I guess we should all believe you

[/pet hate]

[Vesuvan]

Sorry to have been offline for a few days - my modem decided to fry itself in a power surge

Confirming that Gonzo is a mason as he has claimed. I don't think it's necessary to claim the remaining member of our group (and yes, there is exactly one other member now) at this time. In fact, my scum-senses are a-tingling at the people suggesting that one of the Masons must necessarily be a SK even before the size of the group was known. Given the timing of this suggestion being right after the suggestion that the resurrection was caused by a cult, this does make me rather suspicious of Blackberry, though if we have no more resurrections we can leave that possibility until later as at this time there is certainly not enough evidence to support the existence of a cult.

As to the "lump on the head", all I can confirm is that it was due to a player's action. I don't know anything more than that - other than it's damnably annoying for someone who enjoys being as wordy as I do. That may be an indicator of Yosarian, JSexton or BabyJesus being responisble (OTOH, these are the players to have gotten the most annoyed by my long posts in the past), but that could also be reading too much into it.

Right now, though, I'm going to

Vote: LyingBrian

for having already made 3 of my top 5 scum tells already today: assigning kills to specific groups/individuals; insinuating the presence of a cult without sufficient evidence, and calling for a distrust of Masons.

Enough smokescreens, it's time to die scumboy.

[Vesuvan]

Just to clarify:

calling for a distrust of Masons.

was done by people other than LyingBrian. In fact, Brian didn't even follow the reasoning behind Blackberry's argument that a gunsmith implied a "mason traitor" type of role.

FOS: Pooky

for voting Brian based on this argument, and a much smaller

fos: InHim

, who cited his previous vote for his reason for voting for Brian.

Of course, this doesn't change the rest of the argument on Brian, which still makes him the best candidate at the moment.

Also, in regard to the Mason PM confirming the other masons as pro-town, it doesn't. However, I don't see this as reason to lynch Gonzo, as based on the (minimal) Mason night 1 communication, if there is a traitor in the Mason group, it's more likely to be the remaining member of our group than Gonzo.

[Vesuvan]

still waiting on a response from

Vesuvan

......

Sorry - this time of year I tend to be busy with family stuff (we don't have Thanksgiving in Australia to split the holiday season family get-togethers up)

assigning kills to specific groups/individuals

i am still rather newbish when it comes to larger games & specific scum tells, so please explain to me why theorizing about how many groups and types of groups we have is a scum tell...

One part of this is because it's the best way for the mafia to identify the SK and vice versa by people's reactions, but I only apply that to more experienced players. It's a pattern that I've noticed over a long period of time that the people trying to identify who is making each kill are doing so because they have additional information about how people are dying at night.

insinuating the presence of a cult without sufficient evidence

your right, here, there is no reason to suspect a cult at this present time... i was just making a suggestion, trying to keep an open mind... not entirely sure why this is a scum tell either, but maybe b/c it distracts the town from the KNOWN presence of Mafia?[/quote]

That's pretty much why it's scummy to put the idea of a cult forward and to use that supposition that a cult exists to put suspicion on a player who is - almost by definition - innocent unless another player (Blackberry) is innocent.

and calling for a distrust of Masons.

i would like to know how you got this one... the only post i made concerning the masons was as follows:

@Blackberry

:
why does the fact that we had a Gunsmith mean that one of the masons is a SK? i don't follow...

even w/o knowing my true intentions behind this post, i would interpret this as questioning why we should assume there is a SK in the mason group, while again, trying to keep an open mind...this is of course exactly what i had in mind when i wrote this...

FOS: PookyTheMagicalBear, inHimshallibe

the reason i only FOS'd Pooky & inHim is b/c i think Vesuvan is just trying to find scum, while Pooky & inHim jumped on the bandwagon as soon as Vesuvan posted! (almost w/in 1 hour!)[/quote]

I actually meant to type "people who are most likely town" (which should have really been "most likely to be town unless a different player is found to be non-town") and realised the error on re-reading. I'm referring to Fritzler there.

Also, I'm really not sold on the lynch on Pooky given the info presented thus-far. He wouldn't even be in my top 3 candidates today (which are LyringBrian, TSAGod and Zu_Faul). The way that bandwagon has developed may be useful for finding scum if he turns up innocent, but IMO that's not worth it given that we have much better options available.

As far as Pooky's tells go, if he's scum then he's learned to drop one of his more notable tells since I last played in a game where he was scum. I was certain enough that he wasn't scum to FOS him as though I had caught him in a trap of some relevance (i.e. Pooky acting like a sheep is most certainly not a scum tell, but it would be "interesting" if someone tried to lynch him on that)

[Vesuvan]

Wow - I get back from a 2-week holiday where the hotel's advertised "internet access" was non-existant and don't find myself replaced. Anyway, back to regular internet access again now.

Oh, and there were so many holes in Pooky's vigilante claim I'm rather surprised he tried it.

Anyway, given BabyJ's information regarding Illumina and the likelihood of his role being accurate, I'd like to hear from him rather soon. In fact, I'm rather surprised BabyJ wasn't following him last night... hrm...

and

Pooky was a SK at that...

However, the main thing at the moment in Illumina's favor IMO is the death of a mafioso in the morning scene after our SK has turned up dead. That implies that we do in fact have a vigilante, and given the lack of killing the previous night I'm inclined to suspect that verifies Illumina's claim, at which the paranoid side of my mind starts looking over at BabyJ again, as I agree that a tracker and a cowardly reporter in the game together is not all that likely (though by no means damning).

Actually... while I'm not exactly certain, I think I might have spotted a screw-up in BabyJ's claimed activities here... which, combined with his role not doing what a tracker usually does and logical fallicies regarding his claimed actions last night...

Vote: BabyJesus

[Vesuvan]

The "logical fallacy" is the bit I rambled on about you not having followed the person you think is lying about his roleclaim on either night on which you had an opportunity to do so. Instead you followed InHim last night and "cleared" Peacebringer (MAFIA) the night before. Then we have the gap in logic of allowing someone you knew had killed someone on night 1 (rare for a vig) to live to make it to day 2.

The inconsistency in the claimed ability is that Trackers do not usually get to see what someone has been targeted with. They see that person X (being followed) targeted person Y, but not what person X did to person Y. This part is not "hard evidence" as not every mod follows the same conventions, but it's another point that doesn't sit right.

[Vesuvan]

I didn't follow Illumina because if he IS mafia, I didn't think they would use him to do the killings.

And of course, there's no possible way you would have seen him doing his reporter thing instead of killing people

This is what I meant by a "logical fallacy".

[Vesuvan]

The inconsistency in the claimed ability is that Trackers do not usually get to see what someone has been targeted with. They see that person X (being followed) targeted person Y, but not what person X did to person Y. This part is not "hard evidence" as not every mod follows the same conventions, but it's another point that doesn't sit right.

So....what? You think I'm serial-killer buddies with Pooky and just decided to throw him under the bus? This makes no sense.

No: I suspect that you are mafia, a theory that has other supporting points, and that the mafia have an investigative role (a theory also supported, though not strongly, by Yosarian's death).

I didn't follow Illumina because if he IS mafia, I didn't think they would use him to do the killings.

And of course, there's no possible way you would have seen him doing his reporter thing instead of killing people

This is what I meant by a "logical fallacy".

I assumed he would "hide at home" or "not be the one killing", and I would just see him doing nothing.

As I understand his role as he described it, he would not have been able to "hide at home" last night. That makes sense for the previous night, but not last night.

He's out in the open. He's not a threat to the town at the moment, IMHO - as well as a likely cop target. I prefer to go off the radar and catch someone that we're not expecting.

That second bit is a little disturbing - are you indicating that your ability, which would allow us to confirm that Illumina had targeted the person he claims to have targeted, is not best used to clear someone who is under suspicion?

You stated a willingness to throw your vote over to Illumina a little while ago, but you weren't willing to use your ability to check and see if you are wrong?

And saying that he's a likely cop target is rather daft given that your claimed ability is less powerful than a cop's ability, and is equally able to verify Illumina's innocence if he is telling the truth. I agree wholeheartedly with the theory that he

should

be an investigation target... for

your

investigation.

[Vesuvan]

Quicklynching

is

a bad idea, but let's remember that Blackberry=town => Fritzler=town and save ourselves the time and effort of chasing our tails over that particular matter.

Also, on re-reading day 1 and the events leading to Fritzler's lynch, I'm fairly sure BabyJ is lying about his roleclaim.

[Vesuvan]

@Vesuvan

so if i see something that is a bad idea for the town, i shouldn't mention it, or i just shouldn't FOS the player who is mentiong it?...

just b/c you're a "confirmed" townie doesn't mean you should play like scum...

You should certainly point out that it's a bad idea.

However, FOS'ing confirmed (or confirmed unless person X is scum e.g. Fritzler in this case or someone cleared by a claimed cop) players is counter-productive.

concerning BabyJesus, why do you think he's lying, i.e. what in particular?..

I'm referring to his "trap" which led to the lethal bandwagon on Fritzler.

If he knew Pooky was scum, but not which sort of scum, that would be a stupid move for a townie to make. This is beyond the improbability of a townie BabyJesus letting Pooky live to see night 2. I've seen how BabyJesus acts when he has information that indicates (and with a lesser degree of certainty than his claimed info here) that someone is scum when he is town, and he doesn't change directions to lynch someone else that readily, let alone when the "reason" to do so makes no sense.

[Vesuvan]

@BabyJesus: I can also bump the number of times you voted for people other than Pooky if you insist. And you're not a "confirmed" watchman, simply a claimed one.

The stuff I'm referring to is between posts 462 and 470 (techincally 475 since that's when you actually voted for Fritzler). If you

know

Pooky is scum, why would you have supported the lynch on Fritz? Especially when it's an interpretation of your post that led to that bandwagon? Even if you suspect he

might

be scum by how he's playing, it's a far better move (and one I've seen you make as a townie) to lynch the person you

know

is scum. And if you want us to look at the number of times you voted Pooky, we should also look at the number of other people you voted for in the mean-time.

@Fritz: We now have supporting evidence on Illumina's claim (unless we have another non-vig killer/group who hasn't killed anyone until last night). LyingBrian's about 3rd on my list at the moment.

[Vesuvan]

I'm referring to his "trap" which led to the lethal bandwagon on Fritzler.

If he knew Pooky was scum, but not which sort of scum, that would be a stupid move for a townie to make. This is beyond the improbability of a townie BabyJesus letting Pooky live to see night 2. I've seen how BabyJesus acts when he has information that indicates (and with a lesser degree of certainty than his claimed info here) that someone is scum when he is town, and he doesn't change directions to lynch someone else that readily, let alone when the "reason" to do so makes no sense.

I DIDN'T know he was scum. He could have been a vig. I didn't know for sure until he claimed.

Umm... yeah, because Pooky is

SO

the sort of player to vig-kill someone night 1, right?

Which is something that almost never happens.

No: if you see someone kill someone night 1, they're almost certainly scum.

And, pray tell, what game was it where I had an investigation and acted differently? Hell, I can;t even remember a game recently (thats not ongoing) I even had a cop-type role.

London Mafia II: you didn't have an info role, but received very similar - but less reliable - info that said that one player killed another and promptly got that player lynched.

[Vesuvan]

And, pray tell, what game was it where I had an investigation and acted differently? Hell, I can;t even remember a game recently (thats not ongoing) I even had a cop-type role.

London Mafia II: you didn't have an info role, but received very similar - but less reliable - info that said that one player killed another and promptly got that player lynched.

How'd that work out for me?? O yea, I got the doc lynched there. Gee, I wonder why I would show a little more restraint.

Actually, you got the person who made the kill lynched - it just happenned to be a doc who had a drawback. The misplay in that lynch wasn't yours.

And how the hell would I know if Pooky would vig someone N1? I certainly would.

You're quite possibly the only one.

[Vesuvan]

First off, you people need to post more! I go to the effort to set a nice trap and hardly anybody posts anything AT ALL for several days! [/rant]

Now, to cover a number of points:

@Fritz: We now have supporting evidence on Illumina's claim (unless we have another non-vig killer/group who hasn't killed anyone until last night). LyingBrian's about 3rd on my list at the moment.

Actually, we don't. What we do have is evidence pointing toward a second mafia group (THREE kills night 1). However, Illumina didn't mess up on this one unless Flying Dutchman is in kahootz with him. I am now fairly convinced that Illumina = town unless FD = scum.

To clarify, that line of attacking BabyJ based on Illumina being confirmed via vig existence was a trap to try to find members of a second scum group if one does exist.

@Fritz: We now have supporting evidence on Illumina's claim (unless we have another non-vig killer/group who hasn't killed anyone until last night). LyingBrian's about 3rd on my list at the moment.

Whose 2? (I'm assuming BJ is 1)

Nope, BJ is (or rather was as of the start of the day) 4th. 1 was Zu_Faul, 2 was JSexton, 5 was TSAGod if you're interested in what I'm thinking. He was, however, online regularly and someone on whom I had enough suspicion to push, including a point of attack which would help determine who (else) is scum.

Now it's 1: StevieT92, 2: JSexton, 3: BabyJ, 4: LyingBrian, 5: TSAGod (and I think all are at least 50% likely to be scum)

Whatever. We need to get through day1 somehow and if you guys would rather play bandwagon to claim instead of looking at suspicious people, feel free to just pile on and string me up.

I'm not going to play the stupid random bandwagon-claim game with you guys because it's pretty stupid and a waste of my time, I came here to actually vote according to my suspicions and what other people do, not "hey why not?" let's wagon him!

You guys can go ahead and lynch me.

You won't get a claim out of me with a random bandwagon.

I'd give you guys some extra advice on what to do after I get lynched, but frankly a town that's wants to play randomwagon won't really need it so I'm not going to waste my time to type up any for you.

Good luck.

awesome.

Refusing to claim makes me pretty sure you're not the doc or the cop

, and with you now having a greater likelihood then anyone of being scum, I'm happy lynching you.

bump for dumbass Vesuvan

Bolded section makes me more suspicious given that BabyJ has been lying, and is now bringing lies up as evidence in his favor. We have seen him lie when town before, so that's not proof that he is scum, but it is darned suspicious.

no he's saying he shouldn't have given up on Pooky like he did, and switched to me.

Since the doc was dead N1, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Actually, quite the opposite, unless you're trying to convince me that you're enough of a newbie to not know what a "breadcrumb" is?

Anyway, to close off on BabyJ, I'm not

totally

convinced that he's scum (he didn't trip up

too

badly in his defense), but I'm certainly not considering him "confirmed" by any means.

Unvote

(but I've got my eye on you)

Hmmm... Vote Vesuvan You seem to be trying to hard. Also, if Illumina is scum, then Babyjesus is probably scum too (opposing scum trackers), since they both are confirmed to be tracking people. Seems worthy for a cop investigation maybe, but I don't feel that it is a good lynch.

Stevie just fell into the trap big-time; and he just got greedy by trying to convince us to kill both BabyJ and Illumina (what's the bet that if one turned up dead and townie that he'd be calling for a lynch of the other? And the same if one turned up dead scum?)

Not to mention that he just voted for a confirmed Mason. :rolleyes:

...The mason who pointed out that the mason role PM does not verify that other members of the mason group are pro-town, when there was no requirement to do so.

Yeah, that gets a

Vote: StevieT92

Vesuvan: Are you really trying to say that investigation roles should out themselves day 1 if they find probable scum? Especially when a doc is dead? I mean, he crumbed the hell out of Pooky, and bought himself another night to track without worrying too much about getting nightkilled. And, worst case, if he is? We can see who he pushed for D1 and lynch accordingly.

I really don't see what's so scummy about BJ's actions. Hell, if he'd come out D1 with that accusation, I think I'd more suspicious than I am right now.

JSexton has seen this

exact

strategy work on several games on Misetings. What's more is that he has misrepresented my argument by claiming that I'm suggesting BabyJ claim instead of hold to his target (which would be considered a breadcrumb were he to turn up as a dead investigator), as Fritzler has pointed out.

Having played as scum with JSexton before, I know he is well aware of this strategy. He's also well aware - having seen me do it - that an investigator who jumps around will not be leaving discernable breadcrumbs after his death.

FOS: JSexton

(this would be a vote if I weren't voting for Stevie - also to note: if JSexton is scum, I suspect he's in a scum group with BabyJ)

Opposing scum groups + vig + sk = not enough kills, guy.

What if there is no SK? Or no Vig killed? Another doc protected? Roleblocker? I think opposing scum groups could be possible.

FOS:BJ

This series of comments makes BabyJ more likely to be scum of the group who failed to make a kill on night 2. It also means that Zu_Faul is almost certainly not scum wtih BabyJ. In fact, I'm becoming more convinced Zu_Faul is not scum.

[Vesuvan]

vote: inHimshallibe

Why? Because I was trying to give BabyJ a taste of his own medicine?

I think we already know LyingBrian says "baa" a lot.