One post and lurking already!
Mature Mafia: Game Over
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
One thing that is nice about playing here, even with the inconsistent pace, is that you don't have to wade through 200+ posts of spam before people actually start getting serious.
I call BS. What, praytell, do you think you see?rajrhcpfreak wrote:but i didn't think that enough for me to jump another bandwagon.
but i see the hunch.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Wow, Raj. I think that is possibly the worst "analysis" I have ever seen. The game is under 35 posts old, and you are criticizing for a 1st post vote, being "helpful" but failing to analyze "voting trends," for not providing "real content," using "tunnel vision" and "avoiding other conversations." Absolutely the most horrid, slanted, 1-sided, hack job based on nothing I've ever read.
Apparently I've displayed a veritable cornacopia of scumminess and uselessness. My goodness, if that was how you really felt, why on earth wouldn't you be voting me until I was dead. What could DGB have done that was worse than this?
Could it even be an overreaction to several people asking you to explain what you meant? You had to come up with something, but you didn't have anything to say, so you decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and hope that at least some part of it would sound believable?
Now I have to decide if this is scummy on your part or just completely idiotic. I'm leaning scummy. And since I don't have a better place to put my vote at the moment:
Unvote;
Vote: rajrhcpfreak
@Adel: I'm curious. Are you under the impression that because players have been given editing powers in this game, that it's okay to edit your posts at will? That strikes me as a very, very bad thing.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
The game won't work without some level of Moderation, or at least, it won't play fairly.
Frankly, I'm rather well put off by the edit was was done to zu_Faul's death post, because (1) it does not appear that he was the one who edited it (no "last edited by..." line) and (2) it was amajorchange from what was there before. It went from saying he was a vanilla townsperson to "I'm dead" with nothing about alignment or role.
I will continue to assume he was a vanilla townsperson, but if future deaths and reveals can be edited like this then it just makes the game exponentially harder, not even considering the possibility that someone mightliein a death post, or have their post edited to say something not truthful.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
@Adel: I am with logicticus here, proposing "rules" that we all agree to follow is completely worthless. If the scum if this game are being allowed to make significant edits to other player's posts, including death reveal posts (which destroys the integrity of the game in my opinion), then why would they stop because you proposed a rule?
The game doesn't work unless everyone plays fair. Perhaps this is the experiment - to see whether or not the scum would actually do so when not forced by Mod. If so, based just on what I've seen so far, this game is crashing and burning. Hopefully, that's not what's actually going on.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
You know, almost this same topic came up just recently with respect to another game on site which DG is well familiar with:
viewtopic.php?t=8232
The Mod. went AWOL, but because it was a "nightless" game, technically the players could continue, they just had to agree amongst themselves that they would honestly reveal their alignments after they were lynched. Vollkan, as scum, felt like he was not obligated to go along with this, even that it was his duty as scum trying to win to lie. Most people disagreed, and I think even Vollkan himself came round to realizing that his position was wrong, and he should not have continued to play if that was going to be his attitude.
As a gamewithNights, things are even more complex here. I'm not prepared to say it can't work out. But I'm concerned.
A "pledge" that everyone is going to be honest is pointless though. Either you agree that the game just can't work at all without a certain amount of honesty, in which case no "pledge" is needed, or you don't, in which case your pledge would be worthless.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I'm not sure what the point you are making here is?Glork wrote:DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.
Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.
In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I'm not making a "deal" out of anything. I just don't understand why you think this would make any difference at all. Do you actually think the scum (if they don't already agree with this position) are going to have any compunctionsGlork wrote:
Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here.sayingthat they agree with it?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
The bad lurkers:
Coron - said he would be gone 2-3 days 5 days ago.
Phoebus - said he was here and "reading" 2 days ago. But wait! He has possible internet problems, so see he's not really lurking.
DrippingGoofball - and she'sactivein other games....
People who seem as okay as you can seem considering it's only 83 posts into the game:
logicticus
elvis_knits
Talitha
I don't know about raj. His posts are strange, emotional and not well reasoned. But I also get the feeling he might just be that way in general. I may flip over to someone who's not participating soon unless they, you know, start participating.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Generally, Mathcam, you claim when you are in range. This is true whether or not the reasons people are giving for putting you in claim range are good or bad.
Plus, there's one thing you've said that's a definite Red Flag for me (which I am not saying what it is yet, so there) and I'd like to hear a claim at this point as well.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well.Talitha wrote: Some things that are confusing me:
1. Shadow Lurker - Do you think you're playing in this game? Why? Your posts here don't seem to fit the troll profile.
2. If we all have some kind of mod powers, how come zu_faul said he was vanilla (or whatever it was that people saw before the post got edited)?
3. What happens to our powers when we die? Can we delegate someone else to continue our job?
4. Why do posts 87-91 read so weird? Did someone edit them?
5. Would it actually hurt if we all claimed? It might make the game easier.
2. I have not been assuming that everyone has Mod. powers (or rather, Mod. duties). Completely vanilla townies seem very possible.
3. Dunno.
4. posts 87-91 have not been edited, I remember that sequence.
5. I don't think it would hurt too much for the claiming of "Mod" powers, as I suspect they don't have much effect on the overall game.
I still want Mathcan to claim for devious reasons of my own devising.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Possibly I am being unfair here. I was looking at the endgame of raj's "War to End all Freaktowns" and happened to see SL posting there when he was not playing - but it looks like he might have been helping the Mod. at some point during that game, which makes some difference. Dunno.Phoebus wrote:
Is this a fact?Axelrod wrote: 1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well.
Can you link to other games?
If there is a "body of rudeness", I'd consider appealing to the Boss.
That is one distraction we could definitely do without here.
@Glork: I am aware that everyone in the game has "Modding Privileges". This is not the same as everyone having a specific "duty" as part of this game (like Elvis saying he's the "Executioner" etc.) I think some people have the Mod. privileges but no specific Mod. related duties to go with them.
Either that or zu_Faul was scum and lied when he said he was vanilla, and the scum are being allowed to hide the fact that scum was NKed (which begs the question "Who killed zu_Faul if he himself was scum").
Or zu_Faul was town but lied about being vanilla after his death? I doubt that.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Okay, so, in the interests of "playing Mafia" let's take a closer look at this whole Mathcam Wagon, shall we?
First Vote, Post #9: From Macros. This is clearly a joke vote. Nothing to see here.
Second Vote, Post #13: From Phoebus. No explanation given. One assumes this is still simply a random vote.
Post #22 Pooky makes his announcement that he will vote for whoever Talitha votes for. Again, this is rather obviously a joke. I did fully expect him to follow up on this promise whenever Talitha voted though.
Third Vote: Talitha appears and votes Math. Again appears to be simply an initial random vote.
Fourth Vote: Pooky follow through on his threat to vote whoever Talitha votes for.
So it's quite true that Mathcam got up to 4 votes very quickly based really on nothing.
Mathcam himself has nothing to say about the fact he is at 4 votes in his next post. I'm not saying that he needed to say anything about it - as noted, the votes were pretty much worthless - but there it is.
Pooky then prods Mathcam a little bit, in what I would take to be (1) still a joke, but (2) also legitimate attempt to get a reaction out of another player.
Mathcam continue to ignore this particular situation in his
next post. I'm still not calling this scummy. Everything that has happened so far has been pretty much joking and no one is seriously questioning Mathcam, so him ignoring 4 votes is probably okay.
Talitha revotes Mathcam here, but again, it appears to be mainly a joke, with her try to mess with Adel's vote counting program script.
Now it gets interesting.
Post #76: Mathcam votes for Pooky. This, conversely to what has gone before, is not a joke vote. It's a serious vote based on Pooky's "disavowing" any responsibility for his own vote. It's almost like a delayed OMGUS vote, because it comes quite a bit after Pooky's vote, which Mathcam had previously ignored.
Pooky's response is here, which seems completely reasonable to me. Basically, what's the big deal?
Mathcam is a bit flippant in his response here.
Post #102: Mathcam appears to suddenly realize that he is actually at 4 votes for the first time. He expresses "confusion" over why he has 4 votes. For some reason he understands Macros's vote (joke), but doesn't understand that the other posts were equally joking/without reason 1st votes. He re-explains why he is voting for Pooky, but does not try to press that case, and goes on to talk about something else.
Fifth Vote: Elvis_knits. He has his own independant reason to vote Mathcam, which is what he perceives to be Mathcam's fear-mongering (my words).
Logicticus doesn't see the case here (and this would be the case that Elvis_knits was making, not anyone else, since no one else had made any kind of case at all).
Glork "more or less" agrees with Logic here. Asks weird question about the over/under for scum on the Mathcam wagon.
Macros confirms his vote was a joke vote here. Doesn't unvote though. Does not appear to be paying very close attention to the game.
Raj makes an interesting post here. He says Mathcam's last post is enough to convince him to vote Mathcam, but he won't do it yet because that would put Math at L-1. Says he'll wait until "tonight" so as not to rush the lynch.
This post is one of the main reasons I'm still voting for Raj. right now. It's really scummy.
Mathcam posts again here, and is still pushing the Pooky thing. This is another post of his that I don't like.
My next question is to Talitha, who hasn't said much up to this point.
Macros will Unvote at post #116. Mathcam is now at four votes.
'Cam continues to make a push against Pooky in #118.
Pooky comes back at #130 and now he appears to like his vote as a real vote. Says Mathcam's posts reek of scum who is frustrated he's getting voted for no good reason. This is not a completely unreasonable assesment, in my opinion.
Next Vote (vote #5 again): DGB. This appears to be in accordance with her newly announced strategy of voting someone to make something happen, regardless of reasons.
Elvis wants a Mathcam claim at #134.
Glork votes DGB at #135 for blindly pushing wagons.
Glork wants DGB to give him 5 reasons why Mathcam is scum in #139 (or 5 reasons why shamelessly bandwaggoning is good for the town)
DGB responds here. Actually comes up with seven reasons. Clearly these are slanted, not really being "objective" but from the perspective of someone who is trying to prove someone else is scum. I don't think they are all bad though. I didn't like when Mathcam asked for something "stronger" against DBG early on either. And I didn't like the delayed vote on Pooky which Mathcam seemed to push more and more as time went on.
Phoebus makes a long post at #153 which ends with him not changing his vote. I wouldpresumeat this point that his initial "random" vote has now been converted to a serious vote. It's very hard to tell exactly what his reasoning is in this post though because it's so confusingly written.
Sixth Vote at #154: Raj. Following through on his previous threat to vote. Says it's mainly "gut." Still scummy.
Glork agrees Mathcam should claim now that he's at L-1 in #155.
Pooky then switches his vote from Mathcam to Glork in #156. Doesn't like how Glork demanded that DGB give him 5 reasons Mathcam was scum. (Mathcam at 5 votes)
Shadowlurker votes Mathcam in #158 (only noted in case he isn't just being a dick)
Mathcam comes back and defends himself in #162.
Mathcam comes back again in #194 and switches his vote from Pooky to Raj. Exactly why he is switching is unclear because he's still all over Pooky in this post. It appears to me that Mathcam is moving on to a target of easier opportunity, as Raj. has gotten a couple of votes (one of which is my own). This post here is another big reason I am still asking Mathcam for a claim. I dislike the way he associates Raj, Glork, and DGB very much, and I don't like the way he refers to his role PM and argues why it would be pointless for him to claim.
Elvis switches his vote from Mathcam to Raj. in #200. (Mathcam now at 4 votes)
Adel says Mathcam shouldn't have to claim at
#211 since the wagon was pretty much BS from the beginning.
Talitha comes back and Unvotes in #214.
Mathcam is now at 3 votes, I believe. Phoebus, DBG, and Raj.
I throw my support towards a Mathcam claim in #220. The truth is that I thought Mathcam had more votes than he actually did at that point. But my reasons for asking for a claim are, in fact, independant of the votes.
That's where it is now. I don't know what the vote count is. I suspect Raj might be the vote leader. Maybe even DGB.
I would be happy with either a Raj claim or a Mathcam claim. I'm still voting Raj, and he hasn't done anything to make me want to change it. But I certainly could change it.
Someone needs to claim something.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
So wait, you are voting for Raj., but youmathcam wrote:
For Pete's sake. Will someoneAxelrod wrote: Someone needs to claim something.pleaseexplain to me why? I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and Icansee a detriment. If he reveals a mod power that it would be to scum's advantage to get rid of, then it obviously behooves us to keep it hidden. On the other hand, I doubt there's a mod power so vital to the continuing of the game that we wouldn't lynch someone we thought was scum just to hold on to that power.
Unless, of course, there's an affirmative answer to Tally's questions of whether we can re-assign mod powers.
Camdon'twant him to claim?
You just want him to be lynched?
You have 2 choices here:Shadowlurker wrote:Someone is trying to draw attention away to the fact that replacements are not possible in this game (see the fact that there was nothing said about replacements in the signup thread)
(1) Explain your presence in the game
(2) Leave
If you choose option (3): continue to just post whatever the hell I want without explaining anything - don't expect your posts to remain in the game. At least not in their current form.
See how mature I am being?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Because I am bored, please allow me to present: A votecount! (unofficial, of course)
mathcam - 3 (phoebus, DGB, raj)
raj - 4 (Axelrod, Glork, mathcam, elvis)
DGB - 4 (Coron, logicitus, Macros, Adel)
Glork - 1 (Pooky)
Not Voting: Talitha
If we assume Pooky is willing to vote for Mathcam, then three people are essentially tied. I already said I could vote for Mathcam here as well.
Talitha, you may get the tie-breaker!-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I do not see why anyone would delete a post of Macros'. Especially one that "wasn't much."
And if I were Macros and knew that a post of mine had been deleted, I rather think I might think it was important, and try to, you know, replicate said post. As opposed to saying "oh well."
I am also not a fan of Glork's #277 above. Glork, please look back closely over what you just wrote, go re-read your role PM, and tell me if you made a mistake of any kind.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I wrote that. I am assuming it was just some kind of a cut & paste error.elvis_knits wrote:
I DID NOT WRITE THIS.mathcam wrote:
I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.Elvis wrote: So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?
You just want him to be lynched?
Cam
Mathcam: you arestillmissing/ignoring a rather fundamental point here. There is a deliniation between "Alignment" and "Role" in this game. You keep going on about how claiming "Role" won't tell anyone anything and might be harmful because the Mafia then might learn some valuable "Mod. Power" and try to eliminate that from the game - but you are completely ignoring what are traditionally the "Roles" of Mafia. You know, the ones that don't have anything to do with "Mod. Powers/Duties" but are plain old "Cop" "Doc" "Vanilla", etc.
Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Oh good. I'd very much like to hear it. But Mathcam can speak first.Glork wrote:
I'm pretty sure I have a very relevant response to this, but I'll wait for Cam to answer first.Axel wrote:Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Mathcam, I don't care that you are a "replacer" (which it's nice you do not choose to elaborate on - is it exactly what it sounds like and no more). I don't care that you don't want to quote a specific word from your PM. I am not interested in arguing about ethics and whether or not claiming "pro-town" is the same thing as saying that your alignment is pro-town.
This is what I want to know: Aside from your role of "Replacer", are you anything else? Anything traditionally Mafia related? Or are you otherwise "Vanilla" as zu_Faul appeared to claim before his post was edited.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Frankly, a "Mod. Responsibilities" claim might be necessary in order to keep the game going.
It might even be a situation where we would have some kind of agreement that even if a player was killed in the game they would keep up with their "Mod Job" afterwards. At least wecouldtheoretically do something like that. I'm not sure where the scum would benefit from that or even necessarily gain any advantage at all - it might depend on the Jobs. Which is another reason to have them all out in the open.
Then if we don't want a deceased player continuing to do that job it can be delegated to someone else (for all I know deceased players lose their Mod Privileges anyway).-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I would be very surprised to see Elvis turn up scum. She's posted very genuinely the whole game. Mathcam maybe, and Macros definitely maybe, but not Elvis. So in as much as you case relies on some kind of "link" which you are seeing between them, I think it's flawed.Adel wrote:I am not supporting the raj vote for a number of reasons, one of them being that I don't have any mod powers either.
There simply aren't 12 mod duties to hand out, and I'm pretty sure that what mod powers there are were handed out proportionally between town and scum players.
I also doubt that we are in a town free of power roles, and I think we should stick to the general rule of the less we talk about power-roles the better off we are, and I think mod duties should also be thrown in with that group. No talkie talkie says I.
~~~
Why hasn't my case against elvis_knits and mathcam and macros been accepted? It tastes so true to me that I don't understand its lack of support.
Why don't you think the Mod Powers should be claimed? What do you think the town gains from having them hidden?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I am the Player List Maintainer. I keep the first post updated.
When zu_Faul posted his death and that he was townsperson, I posted him in Blue (as some of you may have seen). I was going to do Blue for Town, Red for Mafia, pretty standard.
Then, when his post was edited to remove any reference to alignment, I edited the first post to reflect the change. I didn't know who/why zu_Faul's post was edited, but I thought at the time that the Player List should reflect the information that was actually in the thread - in this case, nothing about alignment. But I made post #14 to memorialize what I remembered zu_Faul's post as having said before. And then I made post #16 to point out that I had edited the Player List.
'dats it.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Macros wrote:
why not? its my job.Axelrod wrote:
Wait, wut? Did I miss something?Macros wrote:yes, the death post alterer would be most happy with a deadline.
Did you edit zu_Faul's post?
Why?
I'm confused.Unvote;
Vote: Macros
This is 1/2 for the claim and 1/2 for the way you just responded.
Want to explain it better?
Here's a hint: why on Earth would you edit the death post to remove any reference to his alignment?
What exactly is your "Job?"-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I haven't played with him either.
There's "terrible" and then there's "anti-town." If someone wants to explain why atownieedits someone's death post to remove all references to that players role/alignment, and then acts confused by the edit, and thendoesn'tclear it up immediately when people start talking about it and how troubling it is....Well, I'd be interested to hear that.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
It was very unloveable.Glork wrote:
Oh? I'd love to hear you elaborate.Axelrod wrote:I am certainly not in love with the way Glork jumped on and off that wagon either.
This.elvis knits wrote:Where was your "witty death scene" "old jokes" or "funny random bullshit"?
All I noticed was you deleting important information.
@Talitha: out of curiosity, was that you who also changed the Thread Title to reflect that we now have a deadline?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Here is where I am coming from to start the day: Glork and Coron are probaby scum.
Pooky was suspicious of two people yesterday - Mathcam and Glork. Mathcam is dead and was town. I do not believe the scum would kill Pooky if he was that wrong about both of them. I mean why? In the hope that someone like me would come out today and make this exact point? Generally speaking, scum don't plan like that. They kill the perceived threats, not the people who are horribly off base/under massive suspicion.
Coron has been the worst contributer by a fair margin in the game. And his "also: vote DGB" just now is classic scum voting.
I also note that Glork has come out quickly against DGB this morning as well (this is not to say DGB is therefore clear - some kind of bussing plan is a possibility - but that seems less likely when no scum are down yet).
Feeling it more on Glork than Coron. Ireallydidn't like the "Die scum Die" post at the end of the day yesterday. Can we say Over the Top?
Vote: Glork-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Unless they flipped a coin, presumably there was a reason. Plus, you just haven't been your usual Glorky self.Glork wrote:Hahahahahahaha.
Axel's using nightkill choices to define his suspicions.
I imagine I can work up a more compelling case later. I don't have the time or energy to do so now though.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I am not "totally ignoring" the Mathcam kill. I do assume that the scum didn't kill him though. You haven't quoted my whole post - in particular, this part:logicticus wrote:
This totally ignores the matchcam kill simply for your case. How do you know the scum group killed pooky and not cam?Axelrod wrote:Here is where I am coming from to start the day: Glork and Coron are probaby scum.
Pooky was suspicious of two people yesterday - Mathcam and Glork. Mathcam is dead and was town. I do not believe the scum would kill Pooky if he was that wrong about both of them.
Vote: Glork
Here, Pooky is the one who is "horribly off base" (that is, if Glork is town) and Mathcam is the one who was "under massive suspicion," which he certainly was yesterday.Axelrod wrote:Generally speaking, scum don't plan like that. They kill the perceived threats, not the people who are horribly off base/under massive suspicion.
Do you disagree with that? I do not believe for one second that the scum would have chosen to kill Mathcam last night. Do you honestly think that?
It's not as if this is a great leap on my part. Note the reactions of both CoronandGlork first thing today:
He doesn't seem to think the Mafia would have killed Mathcam, does he?Coron wrote:So, what do people think of 2 deaths? Is there a vig at work? Seeing as people were suspicous of mathcam yesterday it seems like a possibility.
And Glork:
Doesn't seem to think it was the work of the Mafia either. States it was either a vigilante kill (which has a certain amount of logic to it) or a SK kill (which is really only possible if you think the hypothetical SK chose not to kill on N0, and then to kill the townie under the most suspicion N1, just so as to be able to attempt to claim vig. (all the time without knowing if there was anGlork wrote:Either that or an SK pretending to be a Vig.actualtown vig., of course)
Do you find either of them suspicious for making this same "leap" that you are criticizing me for making?
Do you have a theory on what happened last night at all?
Incidentally, Glork appears to be reversing himself when he subsequently barns your comment with the "winner, winner chicken dinner remark." As though he now agrees it's suspicious to assume that the Mafia killed Pooky and not Cam. Which he did himself. But no, it's not that it's scummy to assume the Mafia killed Pooky, it's scummy to try and draw any kind of conclusions from that, right?
I think that's wrong.
As I recall, Pooky was not the only one who indicated he was open to the possibility that the game might not be completely mountainous. If fact I know he wasn't the only one. And some of us judiciously didn't render an opinion on that one way or the other.elvis knits wrote:Pooky also seemed highly opposed to accepting that the setup was mountainous. Like maybe he had another power role.
He would be a good NK for that reason too.
Even were that the case, you'd have to be arguing that the scum (if they did not include Glork) would look at Pooky and his voting strongly for both Glork and Mathcam yesterday, and decide that, regardless of his being so far off, that they still wanted him dead more than anyone else (including Glork, incidentally, who was defending Mathcam.) Is that possible? Yes, sure, anything is possible. But that's just not the way they usually work.
I'm going to do up a case thing later. I'll do one for Glork and Coron both. Although the three quick votes on me from other people are certainly less than encouraging here.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I've written a big thing on Glork, but it's too long and unwieldy to post in one shot and no one would read it. There are no smoking guns, just some stuff I don't like a whole lot. He's good enough that you can't really expect him to make a major slip as scum though. I'm going to chop it down some and just try to hit the highlights later.
Coron is easier since he has done absolutely nothing all game.
1st post announces he'll be away for the next few days.
2nd post to say something rather obvious (no one should edit other people's posts)
3rd post to say that "prodding" the mechanics probably won't work in this game and we should just try scum-hunting (which he personally doesn't have time to do at the moment).
4th post to say less than 1.5 scum on the Mathcam wagon (in answer to a question of Glork's, with no further elaboration)
5th post to say he's been busy but will have more time later.
6th post to say he's protown and to criticize Glork for making a list of people he thinks are town/scum on Day 1 with hardly any info.
7th post is primarily a defense of Mathcam (and his first that I would say counts as an actual contribution to the game), but it's a defense by way of criticizing the attacks being made against Cam, as opposed to asserting that he thinks Cam has been acting in a townie kind of way.
8th post is to say he thinks Cam's claim of "protown" is equivilent to an alignment claim.
9th post in response to Pooky's prod. He hasn't posted in 6 game days, and say "Hi."
10th post is where he finally does another vote-count and we realize that Raj. was lynched like a week ago. He gives 1 liner comments on 2 people - Macros (don't know much about him, but this seems like something he would do so no reason to condemn him) and DGB (seems like a fine vote).
That's the entirety of Day 1.
Day 2 starts with his speculation that maybe a vig. killed Cam (which is what I'd expect a scum to think, if not necessarily to come right out and say it). Votes DGB for the same reasons as yesterday - which were never stated. The entirety of his prior comments about DGB were what he said in his last post of the day (seems like a fine vote). In fact, he admits his initial vote on DGB was random, and just says that sometimes you random correctly.
Last post seems to criticize me for not giving him better reasons to vote anyone else. Says give me a reason and he'll totally vote them.
How about voting yourself for general scumminess and uselessness?
Unvote;
Vote: Coron
I'm still going back and forth on Glork.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Were you hurt yesterday when Pooky said it?Macros wrote:
i'm hurt!Axelrod wrote:
No. Is that something like "Macros is terrible."elvis_knits wrote:Axel, you know Coron never helps, right?
If we've got a bunch of people in this game who can't be challenged for scummy play because they just suck, then we have already lost.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
Well, I apologize for not being more active.
I have good feeling reads on exactly 2 people (Elvis Knits and Logicitus). Everyone else could easily be scum.
Phoebus
Talitha
Glork
Coron
Macros
DGB
Adel
I think there's 3 scum in that group of 7. Out of that group, Phoebus, Talitha, Coron, and DGB have been lurking fiends. Macros has not beenexactlylurking, but almost totally worthless in terms of overall contribution. So what am I supposed to make of that?
Yippie.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
While I'm sitting here, anyone up for a little gaming of the Mod?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player List:
1) DrippingGoofball - vanilla
2) Coron - vote counter
3) Talitha - deadliner
6) logicticus - thread locker
9) Glork - vanilla
10) Phoebus - post cleaner
11) Macros - death post writer
12) Adel - no mod. duties
13) elvis_knits - executioner
14) Axelrod - player list maintainer
The Deceased:
8) zu_Faul - Vanilla townsperson (we assume) - Killed N1
4) rajrhcpfreak - Vanilla townsperson (we assume) - Lynched D1
7) PookyTheMagicalBear - Townsperson/Prodder - Killed N2
5) mathcam - Townsperson/Replacer - Killed N2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premise #1: some scum have Mod. duties in this game.
That's a fairly unremarkable premise, I think. Otherwise the scum would be DGB, Glork, Adel by default (or someone else who is faking a Mod duty. which seems unlikely)
Premise #2: not ALL the scum have Mod. duties.
Ah, this one's more interesting. I have no proof of this. I have no reason for saying it except that it makes sense to me. It's the way I would have done it. Especially given the presense of completely vanilla townies (which I am still assuming).
What it suggests to me though, is that at least one (and very possibly only one) of DGB, Glork, or Adel is scum.
That's not exactly a revolutionary position either, but comes at it from a different angle.
Continuing on, take those people out and it leaves the pool of living players with Mod. duties:
2) Coron - vote counter
3) Talitha - deadliner
6) logicticus - thread locker
10) Phoebus - post cleaner
11) Macros - death post writer
13) elvis_knits - executioner
14) Axelrod - player list maintainer
Now, are there any Mod. duties that we would not expect scum to be given? The first one that springs to mind for me is "Deadliner." Of all the abilities on this list, that's the one subject to the most potential abuse for scum. What if she just kept setting extremely short deadlines?
Sure, the role could come with restrictions like "You can't set a dealine less than 1 week..." or "You can't set a deadline unless the posting rate drops below xxx" which would limit the abusability for scum, but given everything else we've seen so far, I tend to doubt that the Mod. would have given this role such detailed and specific instructions. On the other hand, the Mod. could quite literally be relying on the players "maturity" to keep their Mod. power separate from their role as scum, but I have trouble seeing that as well. Talitha is least likely scum based on Mod. power alone.
The next most abusable power is Macros'. I mean, editing the player's death posts which contain all the "concrete" information we are getting in this game, is hugely abusable. We've seen it already. Ironically, the fact Macros screwed up and edited zu_Faul's post in such a scummy way might end up being a point in his favor. Because if hewerescum, he would have cheated. I can't believe his role (as Scum Death Post Editer) would have made it okay to remove critical information from the posts, like the alignment and role of the deceased player. That just makes the game unplayable (as discussed before). No, if he were scum, I'd call it cheating, flat out. As a townie who just screwed up though, it's completely possible.
The counter-position is the whole "Macros is terrible" argument. Could he be scum, with that role, and actually not have realized how unfair it would be to edit the death posts like that? Seems hard for me to believe, but if he was really just not paying any attention at all, maybe? He did come clean later about it, so in his (hypothetical scum) mind, that could have set the record straight. I don't want to believe this one either.
3rd least likely (in my opinion) is "Executioner." Because that would just be such an odd role for a scum to have. I mean, they are already trying to kill the town, and one of them has a separate role that says "When a player is lynched you send them an instruction telling them to reveal themselves in the thread." This would presumably include their fellow mafia? That's just weird.
All the others (including my own) are pretty neutral. I don't think it really says much of anything one way or the other about likelyness to be town based on them.
But I'm town , so by the wonderful process of elimination that would leave:
2) Coron - vote counter
6) logicticus - thread locker
10) Phoebus - post cleaner
With at least one and possibly 2 scum in that grouping.
Right now I'm going with one out of Glork, DGB, Adel (most likely Glork - but I'm hating how DGB disappeared and then just posts "Talitha is town" with nothing else) and Two out of Coron, logiticus, Phoebus (most likely Coron and Phoebus).
If DGB and/or Adel had somethingelsethey wanted to tell me about their roles, it might further cement this opinion.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I might approve, but only if you said you were ready to lynch someone and actually argued for why. You've really got no business setting a deadline if you aren't doing anything to push the game forward yourself. You are still voting Logiticus based on an "itch" right? So is he the one you really want lynched?Talitha wrote:I guess I'm thinking about a one week deadline. Any objections?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
I said I wasn't going to do this, but, since nothing else is happening, and I am bored, and don't feel like editing, I'm going to go ahead and post this thing I wrote up on Glork a while ago that's just been sitting on my computer doing nothing. As I mentioned, there are no huge smoking guns here, just a bunch of stuff I don't like very much.
So, this is my (totally unbiased, of course) assessment of Glork's play in the game so far:
Starts rather innocuously. A random vote or two. A joke here and there.
His first "position" is that players should all agree not to edit each other's posts - so if it happens we'll know it was done by scum.
That's not a "scummy" suggestion. It's just more like a pointless one - if you assume people are going to be trying to play the game fairly to begin with.
He pushes that position a bit harder in #62. Fine, I suppose. Still think it's pointless.
The first truly interesting post comes at #66 where Glork speculates about the Mafia method of killing in a hypothetical game without a Mod. Scum would just PM their target and tell them "your dead - post your role info in the thread." He further speculates that the scum might even do this from an alternate account, presumably to prevent the victim from identifying his killer in his death post (which I think we all can agree would be rather unsporting, yes?)
What's interesting here are 2 things - first, how unremarkable a speculation it really is. I mean, in a Modless game howelsewould the scum kill their targets? They'd pretty much have to PM the target directly, wouldn't they? And of course, in that situation, all sides would have to rely on the "Maturity" of the other to not ruin the game by revealing information that they would not normally have.
The second interesting part is his "Disclaimer" at the top. What's that all about? Why did you feel the need to put a big "Disclaimer" saying that the following speculation has nothing to do with any role that you might or might not have? What were you afraid that people might think? That you were showing too much knowledge about the way the scum kill works in this game?
It's especially interesting in light of his later reveal that he has no role or ability. I'm trying to envision why/how a vanilla townie feels the need to say something like that and having trouble. Presumably, from your own role, you would have no basis to think that this game was without a Mod. You would have had to gather that information from other people's posts.
I think the first person to explicitly speculate that we were without a Moderator at all in this game was Adel in #45. Elvis Knits earlier had "speculated" that various Mod. duties had been assigned to players as early as #8, and then says she thinks it's a modless game in #64.
So, did you think we were playing a Modless game when you posted #66?
Glork then makes the first of his two "serious" votes of the day, on Raj at #87/88. No reason given at this time except that he's "feeling" the Raj. wagon. Okay.
His next action is to press people to give an opinion on the number of scum on the current Mathcam wagon (consisting of Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits). Wants to know if people think there are more or less than two scum on this wagon.
Frankly, I found that whole line of inquiry bizarre. I mean, if youknewMathcam was a townie, you could look at that wagon with suspicion - hell, looking back at itnowmight provide something of use. But at the time, it was very early, and we knew nothing. It was the equivalent of asking all the players "Do you think Macros is scum?" "Do you think Pooky is scum?" "Do you think phoebus is scum?" etc. At a time when no one is going to have well formed opinions about any of them. And for the reason, apparently, that you personally just didn't like the wagon?
I also note that you, Glork, did not answer your own question that you were so gung-ho to get other people to answer, and never gave any opinions about any of these people on the Mathcam wagon. You certainly didn't vote any of them for waggoning 'Cam. (you voted Macros very briefly later for an entirely different reason).
The person Glorkdoesvote next is DGB, who comes along in #133 and jumps right on the 'Cam wagon. It is not my intention to defend DGB here, but I do note that this vote is entirely in keeping with her publicly expressed opinion that people should be wagoned early and often to make things happen in Mafia games. Which I believe is something you are aware of. So it really can't be considered much of a scum tellfor her(which is not to say that it's pro-town play, or that I agree with this particular philosophy).
Despite knowing this about her, you vote her in #135. You say that pushing wagons blindly is (something anti-town). This appears to be as much a policy vote as a vote because you find her scummy.
Glork then makes the post that Pooky will criticize him for in
#139. Give me 5 reasons why Mathcam is scum.
DGB responds to this request in #144. Actually gives 7 reasons.
Glork's response to that is "REEEEEEEAAAAACH."
He elaborates in #148 where he seems to acknowledge that at least two of DGB's given reasons are actually legit, whereas the others are a stretch. This doesn't change his opinion on DGB. Now he thinks she waggoned first and went looking for reasons later, which = scummy.
That is probably the most legitimate point he has made in the game up to then. It certainly seemed like DGB was voting 'Cam just to make something happen - not because she had any particular suspicion of him, but when pressed, she comes up with a boatload of reasons for the vote, as though she actually found him suspicious before she voted, but just hadn't said so.
It does remind me a tiny bit about what Raj said about myself early on, however. He mentioned he saw "something" suspicious about me, and when pressed suddenly decided that every post I had made in the entire game up to that point was suspicious to him for one reason or another.
Pooky attacks Glork next for "setting up" DGB with his questioning and Glork responds Here. This post feels like a bit of deflection. Glork says that if DGB had declined to give him 5 reasons to suspect Cam - basically said "I don't have 5 reasons, I've got 2" or whatever, he'd have been satisfied. But it's the fact that DGB actually attempted to give 5+ reasons, including weak reasons, which has made him even more suspicious.
Pooky's response is that Glork was more or less "commanding" DGB to come up with 5 reasons, not asking if she had five reasons, so he should hardly be surprised when she gives them to him, and if some are consequently a stretch.
Glork's resolve appears to be weakening as of #179. Although he thinks he can usually get an accurate read on her, now he's just "baffled" by DGB. It's unclear to me why he should be less certain than he was before based on what's happening in the thread.
Then he makes what I consider his weakest vote. DGB had made a rather sweeping statement that she was seeing a "Glork-mathcam-macros" scum team, and Raj. posted that he "buys" that grouping. Glork instantly switches his vote off DGB and back to Raj.
The question is, if the person you are currently voting for is the one proposing the ridiculous (in your opinion) scum team, then why would you jumpoffthat person and onto someone else for agreeing? How does that make DGB less likely to be scum and Raj. more? I can see where Raj would move on up the suspicious list, but not where it would make you want to jump your vote - except in as much as a DGB wagon was going nowhere at the present time and Raj. seemed to have more suspicion on him from others. Making it very much a vote of opportunity.
This vote sticks almost the rest of the day. Glork doesn't really talk about much else. There's some discussion about SL and if we think he can edit posts. Some diuscussion about DGB and if how she is playing is typical or not.
He maintains that he think Mathcam is town, without really going into it at any length. He's really not defending Camtoostrongly for someone he thinks is town and who got pushed very close to lynch. What he does do is steadfastly maintain that Raj is obviously scum.
His PBPA of Raj is Here. It's not exactly an unbiased objective look, which Glork freely acknowledges.
I really don't like the patronizing tone of This post either. "Listen to me, son..." ?
And then, the last thing, which was his momentary diversion onto the Macros wagon, after it was revealed that Macros was the person who edited zu_Faul's death post.
It's "wagon, wagon, wagon" in #489. But then, unvote and back to Raj in #499. And what's the reason for the switch? Very hard to tell, but itappearsto be because Pooky (and phoebus) said that Macros was a "terrible" player, and nothing more. Phoebus' post was not much of anything at all in point of fact. Just "oh dear, have none of you played with Macros before?" While Pooky more explicitly said "He's terrible."
What I don't like is why Glork would abandon the vote so quickly based on that kind of information. Macros does what is objectively an anti-town thing, and gets your vote, but when someone says (in essence) "well, he's terrible, so he might could do that and still be town," you immediately go (in essence) "oh really, well if he'sterriblethen I guess I won't vote him any more...." Which is just weird.
I found This post, after we realized Raj had been lynched, to be insincere and over the top. Who goes "Woo, die scum!" especially before we have even seen an alignment reveal?
And his next post "Oh boys and Girls I am so PROUD of you all" is more of the same.
Obviously hasn't come out today with anything.
That was what I wrote before. To this I suppose we can add that he's dropped off the face of the planet in this game as well.-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005
In addition to trying to remember why I thought Adel was town, I'm trying to remember why Macros (now Nonny) was not lynched dead for lying and/or hypocrisy based on these posts:
Post #11:
Post #25:holy crap, what in the hell is ging on, it said something like "I am vanilla townie I quit"
Emptyger, what is going on?
I mean, seriously, how does someone who (A) is responsible for the edit he is exclaiming "Holy Crap" about and (B) calls a player suspected of editing a "scumbag" when they actually did it themselves, live?what, im sorry but i may have missed something along the way.
how hav e we discovered dgb editing? (if we have i'll vote him for it the scumbag)
I'm waiting talithas first post, let aloone vote
Is it really just because he's supposed to be terrible? I mean, that's worse than terrible, that's downright lying deceit. And it's NOT what Macros later said:
He was exclaiming "Holy Crap" before almost anyone else had said one word about the death post edit. He called the (hypothetical) editor a "scumbag" before people started complaining that the editor was "cheating" - not to mention the fact that the death edit contained precisely none of the wittiness than he claimed it was his intention to insert.@ Tall, I assumed iot was to give the game flavour, hence my excitement when the game started, I assumed (obviously quite wrongly) this was an oppourtunity for me to delight the masses with witty death scenes, my early foray to test the waters showed clearly everyone was not clued in to the idea (that I thought was immeadiately obvious) that despite the mature title, this game would be a delightful trip down a twisted nostalgia lane, chock full of old jokes, and random bullshit. But no, I was filled with disgust at the serious tone in pretty much everyones post, I was then forced to play dumb for fear of a pogrom on my fine self for editing the post (which is my job).
Could he really be justthatbad?-
-
Axelrod Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: February 25, 2005