Mafia 44: Generic - Abandoned!

[Falcone]

Hello everybody. No vote, I want to hear what Strykker has to say.

[Falcone]

Um... to me it looks like Strykker's just pulling our leg. It looks much like a joke/random vote to me, and he just said not random as a joke, if you could clarify please strykker (and possibly we could wait to bandwagon poor don til after strykker responds)

I realize Twomz was right here, but this seemed a scummy comment. There were a lot of people not thinking it was a joke, and I can't really blame them for that. It seems that either he was defending a scum partner, or, more likely, that he already knew Don Gaetano is innocent.

I don't agree with Strykker that Don Gaetano was too defensive. I believe his reaction was quite normal for an innocent townie, possibly with a good role, who thinks a cop has found him guilty. As for the reaction of others, I don't really see much that seems suspicious. They all thought Strykker was a cop and acted accordingly. If anything, it has to be Snap's random vote during the bandwagon. It seems a bit weird to totally ignore that Don Gaetano was already at four votes.

[Falcone]

If you're going to attack Strykker, do it for the right reason please. I.e. not because of LAL (he didn't lie), but because he's attacking people for bandwagonning and not others who did the same thing. If you think that is a good enough reason to vote, go ahead.

Vote: Fritzler

for confirming his vote on Gaetano without good reason (in my opinion).

[Falcone]

If you're going to attack Strykker, do it for the right reason please. I.e. not because of LAL (he didn't lie), but because he's attacking people for bandwagonning and not others who did the same thing. If you think that is a good enough reason to vote, go ahead.

That's what I'm doing... unless you weren't referring to me when you said that.

I was referring to armlx when I said that. His last post seems to imply he has understood now, so I guess it's fine. I could vote for armlx now for being slightly inconsistent, but it seems to me he often does things like that, so I'll let it slide.

[Falcone]

Yeah, Fritzler, I probably deserve that. What I meant to say is that I played with armlx before and I learned that he often has exactly that kind of inconsistencies in his posts, and that that doesn't mean he's scum.

[Falcone]

Dranko

, could you clarify that please?

I think the Frizler bandwagon is kind of pointless, so

unvote: Fritzler

. It's not because his posts are short, that he's not contributing. A couple of his Fos'es and votes had obvious (though not necessarily strong) reasons. It's slightly annoying that he's constantly moving his vote, but I don't think he's really suspicious.

[Falcone]

It seems that my vote didn't count. I have no idea what may cause this. One of armlx and Frizler seems to be in the same situation. Could these two state if they know what's going on?

[Falcone]

So there really is something strange going on with the vote counts. I guess we'll find out what eventually.

The following people have contributed nothing or almost nothing (I looked at both post counts and actual content):

darquiel: hasn't posted yet
logisticus: just one post
Shamrock: just a vote and an unvote for Don Gaetano
jediknight: two posts
LyingBrian: he just posted for the first time, so let's hope he'll participate from now on
Iammars: 6 posts, but nothing game-related

I'll

vote: Twomz

because I think some of the people on the Fritzler-bandwagon are scum. Twomz basically voted for Fritzler because he supposedly wasn't contributing, suggesting that "at least joining a bandwagon" would be better. Then in his last post he asked others to give him reasons to vote for someone else. Not very strong reasons, but better than random I think.

[Falcone]

Yes, Twomz, I was referring to your post #76. Remember, it's often hard to catch jokes or sarcasm in written language (especially for someone like me whose first language is not English).

My reasons for voting you are 1) voting for Fritzler for a reason that's false (in my opinion) 2) the bandwagon comment you just explained 3) asking others to provide reasons so you can vote for someone else. The last reason is the most serious I think, because it seems you're trying to look like a helpful townie ("if you see someone scummy, I'll help you lynch him"), while you're in fact waiting to join any bandwagon that comes along.

Also, it's noted that 4 of the 6 people I said needed to post more, have posted within hours of my post. I feel all special now. More importantly, it proves that they're following the game, as opposed to being away, and possibly weren't posting to avoid saying something wrong.

[Falcone]

@ StrykkerVerde

I have to agree with Don Gaetano here. LyingBrian apologized for not participating, and we have no reason not to believe his excuse. And he is posting content, so he's not a lurker. Attacking him for that is pointless. What also bothers me, is that you're still advocating lynching Don Gaetano. I get the feeling that your vote maybe isn't so random after all. Otherwise it really looks bad when you point out possible scummy behaviour of player A and then say we should randomly bandwagon player B.

FOS: StrykkerVerde

[Falcone]

Armlx, it's not going to work if you announce it. Could you explain what you meant by your #131? Nobody asked you if you had any info on chamber.

And to Frizler: What do you mean "And chamber is"? Is he pulling a BJ? (Whatever that means...)

I don't think it's very useful to speculate about what's going on with the votes. We'll find out eventually I think. In any case, at the beginning some extra votes or non-votes won't make a difference. That may change when the game nears the end of course.

[Falcone]

Oops, that should read: "Nobody asked you if you had any info on Fritzler."

[Falcone]

Brian, are you saying you believe the secret vote comes from a scum player? I had a couple of ideas in mind about where the vote could come from, but I hadn't thought of that.

Question to the Mod

: Has darquiel been prodded, or is there maybe a game related reason she isn't posting?

[Falcone]

About the secret vote: Strykker makes a good point when he says that scum with that ability would most likely have waited to use it until a more critical moment. Then again, the fact that nobody has come forward makes me think the secret vote could still very well be a scum ability. It seems plausible, but by no means certain, that the player with the secret vote wouldn't have a normal one.

Now who could have the ability? It's true that VitaminR isn't voting anyone right now, but he voted earlier. He unvoted before Dranko put up a votecount though. At some point, I thought it might be darquiel who had the secret vote, and that maybe it was part of a restriction that she couldn't post at all, but that theory seems to be obsolete now. If I had to guess who was it, I'd say jediknight. He hasn't voted yet, and he even said in his first post that he was not going to (random) vote. I don't know if it's worth pressuring him about it, though.

[Falcone]

Twomz, I don't agree that I was being hypocritical by attacking the people on the Frizler bandwagon after being on it myself. I was the first vote on Fritzler, and my reason was that I didn't like his confirm vote on Don Gaetano after Strykker had said he didn't have info. All the other people on the wagon, starting with you, voted for Fritzler saying he wasn't contributing, which I find a weak reason and also is not true. (Well, to be entirely correct, maybe Sineish had a slightly different reason, i.e. metagaming, for his 6th vote.) You are right that usually the 3rd and 4th vote on a bandwagon are thought to be suspicious, and maybe Snap and chamber do deserve a closer look, but I voted for you and not for one of the others because there are other things in your posts I don't like, namely the fact that you seem to think jumping on a bandwagon is better than coming up with your own reasons for your votes.

And no, I don't think it's satisfactory when someone responds to an accusation by taking one of the three points that are made against him and says: "Oh, I was only joking." Now in your last post you give some explanation for your comment that you wanted people to provide you with reasons for a vote.

(I)

didn't want to just vote for a random person, or to vote based on some crap logic. I was just stating that if someone put out a concrete reason that someone else was scum, i'd vote to off em.

Are you saying here that if you'd have to come up with your own reasons for a vote, it'd be random votes or votes based on crap logic, so you need others to give you concrete reasons someone's scum?

Oh, and one other thing:

I've decided after rereading the thread that strykkerverde is most likely mafia, or lying, or both. I'd guess that all nongeneric players are antitown. Although, as usual, i'm probably wrong.

What do you mean? If Strykker is in fact lying, than we can be 99% sure he's scum, as townies generally do not lie. I agree with you that Strykker is acting a bit weird. But he has claimed a role that can easily be proven, so he probably is innocent (and if not, we'll lynch him tomorrow). And the assumption that everyone who's not "generic" is antitown, is, to say the least, a very dangerous assumption.

[Falcone]

VitaminR is really the only person that doesn't scream Mafia at me right now (that's mainly because we've given him such a hard time about his name, and that's happened to me before (last time i explain what it means to mafia players )).

So you think VitaminR is probably innocent? May I ask why exactly? And could you please stop having such a defaitist attitude? I understand being attacked for reasons you think are weak is not pleasant, but assuming no one is going to listen to your defense doesn't help.

[Falcone]

Unvote

, in case somehow the lynch wasn't reached. Was it really necessary to lynch Twomz that quickly? It would have been really nice to at least let him claim.

FOS: everyone who voted for Twomz without giving reasons

. There's without a doubt a bunch of mafia voting for him who are overjoyed they got a free kill.

[Falcone]

Wow Falcone, you really don't read my posts, do you?

I do read your posts, and of course I saw your claim, all I'm saying is it would have been nice to let you claim BEFORE you were lynched.

[Falcone]

So we lost a lawyer and an ER medic. I don't remember having seen a lawyer in a mafia game before. Any ideas what kind of ability he could have had? I think I once saw a game with a medic. He had the ability to revive a dead player if I recall correctly.

Before anyone asks, I have no idea who attacked me tonight, and I have no idea what the consequences of me being very wounded could be. I surely hope the ER medic wasn't supposed to heal me or something, because if that's the case, I'll probably be dead soon. I also remember a game where there was a SK whose victims weren't killed immediately, but only the next day after they had posted a certain number of times. In case that's also what's happening here, I'll try to make the most of my posts.

I really don't like the way Twomz was lynched yesterday. Sure, there was a deadline, and sure the holidays were approaching fast, but that still doesn't justify quick-lynching someone like Twomz was. He was at four when the deadline was imposed, and the tenth vote was put on less than 24 hours after that. And look at what people were saying to justify their vote: some gave vague reasons, like LB and shamrock, others just said it's important to lynch someone rather than going to night without a lynch (which I agree with to an extent, but still), but no one really tried to find good reasons for lynching him. This also goes by the way for the people who voted for Twomz before the deadline hit. Except me, I tried to build a case against him with real arguments, and now I feel very used by the mafia, and I don't like that .

I'd also like to note that both of tonight's victims were voting for Twomz. Iammars was the first to vote for him with a random vote that he never changed, and LB was 5th, and first after the deadline was set. So it seems that the mafia is trying hard to prove that being on the Twomz wagon isn't all that suspicious. Take Shamrock for example. He voted for Twomz after the deadline was set (8th on the wagon), and after the last vote was put on, which was just two hours later, he made this comment:

Oh, snap, that was lynch.

*groan*

This looks awfully insincere to me: he could hardly be sad that Twomz was dead when he put the 3rd-to-last vote on him just before. Also, if you look at his contribution before that, he's been really short with his comments:
- vote for Gaetano
- unvote when Strykker said he had no info
- a post to excuse his lurking
- a vote for Strykker to make him claim
- unvote
- 8th vote on Twomz
- *groan*

That's all, and everything without at least giving a little explanation or a personal opinion on something.

Vote: Shamrock

. This doesn't mean of course that the other people who are responsible for the death of Twomz are free from blame.

By the way, there were two deaths tonight, and only one last night. Maybe Twomz succesfully protected someone on N1? I don't see any breadcrumbs he may have left at the moment, but it could be useful to search for those.

Oh, and Strykker, can you tell us how your night at the bar went? Unless there's some really good reason, I think you should reveal who you got drunk with tonight .

Sorry for the long post, but I felt I had to put out all my thoughts now, since I'm afraid I'll be dead soon.

[Falcone]

It seems that Strykker is cleared. It would be really nice if his role implies he gets info on the people he invites, or maybe roleblocks them (which would make sense flavorwise), but I guess that's a bit much to hope for.

I must say I really didn't get that the exchange between Shamrock and Fritzler yesterday was a joke. (English isn't my first language.) Some suspicion of Shamrock remains, because he was on the Twomz bandwagon, and because he's suddenly posting a lot since I voted for him.

It's slightly ironic that armlx is voting for Snap for putting the last vote on Twomz, since he himself was the second-to-last. I also wonder what "stuff" Snap has done yesterday, that makes him extra suspicious.

FOS: armlx

for that. Then again, I really don't like Snap's excuse that he wasn't aware that his vote was the last one needed for a lynch. It's an excuse that is also often used by townies, sure, but that doesn't mean we should let scum get away with it. So I guess I'll also

FOS: Snap

.

Oh, and I made a mistake in my previous post:

I'd also like to note that both of tonight's victims were voting for Twomz. Iammars was the first to vote for him with a random vote that he never changed, and LB was 5th, and first after the deadline was set.

LB was the 6th vote on Twomz, and the 2nd after the deadline was set. Doesn't really matter much I suppose.

[Falcone]

About the lynching vote yesterday: I really hate it when someone puts on the Xth vote on someone, and then later claims he didn't realize it was the Xth vote. True, it's an easy mistake to make for a townie, but at the same time, it's also something you can easily get away with if you're scum. The town can't really know which case it is, because the only thing the person in question can say is: "Oops, sorry, won't happen again", and that doesn't really help us decide if he's scum or not. It's something that comes up almost every game, and it annoys me to no end.

Anyway, I still wait for armlx' explanation, and I also feel a little uncomfortable with jedi's last posts. He seems to be not trying hard to come up with useful analysis himself, and it's kind of strange that he expected the "masons" at the bar to come up with any great theories overnight.

[Falcone]

I'm all for putting some pressure on some of the people on the Twomz bandwagon, especially when they vote for someone with the great explanation: "No real specific reason, he just seemed scummy." (post 262)

Unvote: Shamrock
Vote: armlx

That's five by my count.

[Falcone]

Unvote: armlx

I'm 99 percent sure he's innocent.

[Falcone]

The way armlx worded his claim makes me almost sure he's telling the truth. I'd prefer not to say any more than that. I really am almost certain he's innocent.

Now, there's already a bunch of the ten people who voted for Twomz yesterday that probably are not mafia, and I'm still convinced that there must have been several scum on that wagon. See Fritzler's post 214 for a survey of the Twomz voters.

vote: Snap

He was the last voter, and he claimed he didn't knew he was last. I don't like that. He hasn't been a shining example of usefulness either, although that can be said of several people here.

[Falcone]

Mod

, Vote count please?

[Falcone]

So, no trace of secret votes or blocked votes or something at the moment. (That's why I asked for the vote count by the way.)

I'll explain the reasoning behind my last few votes to BMQ and logisticus:

1. I'm convinced that there must have been several scum on the Twomz bandwagon yesterday.
2. Several of them are innocent: myself (obviously), Iammars & LB (because they're dead), armlx, Don Gaetano (less sure about him).
3. Of the remaining people, I think those who voted later are more suspicious than those who voted earlier.
4. I won't vote for someone just because they voted for Twomz yesterday, but if there's other reasons to be suspicious of them, they get my vote.

I think this explains my votes of today: Shamrock (8th on bandwagon), armlx (9th), and Snap (10th). Now I realize this may not be the only method, or even the best method, to catch scum here, but I find there's little else to go on, so this seems like a good way to start.

[Falcone]

VitaminR, I find it very hard to believe you really think the Fritzler bandwagon "has more reasoning and careful thinking behind it than any of the bandwagons so far". Let's take a look at the Fritzler voters:

Looking back over the Twomz lynch yesterday, Fritzler's behavior made me feel funny. His attitude once Twomz had been lynched (but not before day closed) wasn't very protownly. If I had checked in and realized we had lynched a doctor, my reaction would probably be more like Falcone's
than Fritzler's. "You're lynched. Bye buddy." Isn't the remorseful response I'd expect out of a realization that we lynched a valuable power role.

A vote based on a "funny feeling", and a joking comment. Acceptable reasons, sure, but not really "careful thinking".

Fritzler may have been not remorseful, but it is hard to tell if it's his playing style or scumminess.

Neverless, it's not exactly a bad action, though I would just prefer to coax another Snap joke from him.

unvote, vote fritzler

A vote based on ... ? He says he doesn't know Fritzler is suspicious or not, and anyway, he just wants to hear another stupid joke. Great thinking here.

Vote Fritzler

He seems to be trying to lead us around by the neck and I just don't like that. And mostly because right now I trust BrianMcQueso and he appears to have a Fritzler concern.

A vote for Fritzler for leading the town because BMQ seems to be concerned with him. Another great piece of thinking.

Voting Fritzler for bandwagoning is not really very productive, because he does it in every single game he's in, regardless of his alignment, and aside from that, I just don't see what he did wrong. He was on the Twomz bandwagon, but as I said before, it would have been more remarkable if he hadn't been, and I'm more suspicious of the people who voted for Twomz after the deadline was set.

I already stated some suspicion of jediknight earlier, and there's also a little thing TSAGod said that I found interesting. They might both deserve a closer look, but for the moment I prefer to put some pressure on Snap. I explained my reasoning for that earlier.

[Falcone]

Vote: Extend deadline

I don't think the people actually playing this game should be punished for the actions of those who aren't playing. If you send out prods, at least give them some time to respond to them, read the thread, and make a meaningful contribution. I'd be most grateful if you could give us an extension.

[Falcone]

Blackberry, what are your reasons for voting me?

Snap's claimed role looks really powerful, if used well. I don't necessarily trust him yet; it's mighty convenient for him to say he didn't send in night choices. But I don't think he should reveal his partner at the moment. Jedi's confirmation that there are mason cops in the game is a point in his favour, but since his role apparently forgot some details, we can't go on that alone. After all, one of the cops could be scum. Snap, do you know for certain that your partner is innocent?

Fritzler's claim seems testable to me, although his lack of useful results is a point against him.

[Falcone]

Unvote: Snap

I'm still not entirely convinced by his claim, but we don't risk much by leaving him alive for now, and if he's telling the truth, forcing him to out his partner would be disastrous.

I'm still waiting for Blackberry's reasons for his vote for me.

[Falcone]

Chamber, why did you vig LyingBrian?

[Falcone]

I have a feeling chamber is telling the truth. He attacked LB heavily yesterday, and his last posts make me believe him. I also think that, if he's lying, he's probably a Serial Killer, and not mafia. So if no one comes forward to counterclaim him, and he agrees to not killing anyone until the town tells him to kill, I say we let him live. If there are two kills tonight, we need to take another look at him of course.

[Falcone]

Who did you follow on the first night? And what exactly is the reason you believe armlx' claim?

[Falcone]

FOS: jediknight

Why are you so eager to talk to Strykker and Snap tonight? I don't know your role obviously, but I see some reasons why scum would like to talk to those two specifically, and no reason a townie would want that. Directing other players' night choices is a scum tell by the way.

[Falcone]

... and you (jedi) didn't FOS me, so what are you talking about?