Firefly Mafia - Voyage over

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm...well, it can be useful to figure out what we've lost. Anyone want to guess what role Shepard Book might have had?

No vote just yet.

[Yosarian2]

Heh...I saw the movie, but have not yet had a chance to see the show, although I keep meaning to get around to getting the DVD. So I could pick some of the main characters out of a lineup, but that's about it.

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) I was thinking that it could be useful because it's something that scum have reason to try to lie about (if they pretend to not know anything about the flavor, it might make their eventual fake role claim more beliavable; scum often pretend to know less then they really do), but something that it's really easy for them to trip themselves up with if they slip and show they have more information then they claimed, especally if they make the false statement "I never saw the show" early on day 1; also, if a scum tries to claim early on that he dosn't know anything about the flavor of the show, then he can't later try to use the flavor of someone's role to get them lynched. And I can't imagine it's something a good guy would lie about, so it seemed like a good scum trap.

However, I can see your point too, armix.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I've got to say this bandwagon seems like a bad idea, especally as Nanook seems to be lurking in multiple games right now.

[Yosarian2]

unvote, vote Yosarian-

where is he?

Um, I posted on Monday. What are you talking about?

[Yosarian2]

With the Nanook bandwagon, it seems a little wierd how fast it was moving, but Nanook's total lack of response or surprise to the fact that he has 6 votes on him also seems really strange. If you log on, and find out that you suddenly have 6 votes on you, why would you not even mention it?

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm...well, it can be useful to figure out what we've lost. Anyone want to guess what role Shepard Book might have had?

With the Nanook bandwagon, it seems a little wierd how fast it was moving, but Nanook's total lack of response or surprise to the fact that he has 6 votes on him also seems really strange. If you log on, and find out that you suddenly have 6 votes on you, why would you not even mention it?

Between trying to start up role speculation and indiscriminate finger-pointing, both at Nanook and at those on his bandwagon, all without a placed vote, I think Yosarian2 deserves more attention than we're giving him. At any rate, my vote won't be moving any time soon.

There is nothing wrong with speculating about which role are already dead. Now, speculating about what role names might be in the game or anything like that can be tricky as it can help the scum role-claim, but there's nothing wrong with trying to figure out what roles are dead; having an idea of what we might have lost can help the town plan stratagy, and it's as good a way to start a day one conversation as any. I have always disagreed with the silly "speculation=scum tell" line of thought, because trying to get some idea of what the set up is really is a useful thing for the town to do over the course of the game, and you can sometimes get some scum tells from those conversations.

Before his most recent post, I didn't like the Nanook bandwagon because I don't think lurker pressure on someone who's inactive on several threads is very productive; now I'm more suspicious of Nanook, for the reasons I just explained. I find his lack of response odd, and I've seen scum try to just ignore a bandwagon on them before. I'm not going to join that bandwagon just yet, because it's already fairly large and I want to see some kind of actual response from him first, but if I was going to vote right now, that's where my vote would be.

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) Whatever. I don't agree with you on speculation, simply because what I was asking was basically a question to those who have seen the show if there was any obveous role that he might have been. I tend to think it's fairly harmless day 1 conversation which can end up helping the town, but we can agree to disagree on that.

However, this is the second time you've thrown this comment around without actually explaining it, which I find to be much more interesting:

That coupled with a sketchy post regarding Nanook was enough for me to make my argument publicly and suggest that other people vote for you, as well.

What was "skechy" about my post regarding Nanook? Do you disagree that the way he basically ignored a large bandwagon on him is strange and possibly suspicious?

[Yosarian2]

I think making comments that are suspicious of both an individual and of those on a bandwagon for that individual is a common scum tactic of playing the field, especially when no vote is placed. That's what I mean about the comment being sketchy. It isn't reflective of the quality of either half of your suspicions but just of the general way in which you expressed your concerns. I thought that was well explained the first time and so I didn't clarify it when I brought it up again.

I never said I was suspicious about the people on the Nanook bandwagon at all, I think the most I said about that was that the bandwagon "was wierd".

In post 87, I said it seemed like a bad idea to bandwagon a lurker who was lurking in several threads. Later, after Nanook gave that strange non-response to the bandwagon, I said:

With the Nanook bandwagon, it seems a little wierd how fast it was moving, but Nanook's total lack of response or surprise to the fact that he has 6 votes on him also seems really strange. If you log on, and find out that you suddenly have 6 votes on you, why would you not even mention it?{/quote]

I don't see how that's "indescriminate finger pointing". I still thought the bandwagon was a little strange, but I was clearly mostly suspicious of Nanook's response to it at that point.

[Yosarian2]

yosarian needs to be dealt with and not liking the folks voting me.

I need to be "delt with"?

[Yosarian2]

You know I find it hypocritical that I am the only one being pointed at for lurking here. It's been six days since I've last posted yes, with there only being like 20 posts?

I don't know what more you really wish for me to "contribute" BJ, as I stated my defense as to why I was inactive.

well, he does that in his other games too, so not much scummyness in that, or is there?

Funny that you make such a statement and then immediatly follow in a latter post with a vote.

You guys can run me up all you'd like, but you won't get a claim out of me, at least not on day 1 for the reasoning behind it.

You're at 8 votes, out of 9. You need to either claim, or defend yourself, or tell us who you think would be a better day 1 lynch then you, or do SOMETHING. If you don't want to be lynched, then you need to give us SOME reason not to lynch you.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, I see. There are 17 votesm so majority should be 8....

Um, no, 8x2=16. Majority of 17 is 9. Accoding to the vote count at the top of the page, nanoook was NOT toast until you killed him, although he seemed to think so.

[Yosarian2]

fos:Iammars

Why would you come out and say "you were waiting for something from the mod" and "someone rolebloced you night one" like that? It sounds like you're trying to hint for some kind of informational role that got role-blocked night 1 and thus got no information, but there would be no logical reason for a townie to make that kind of vauge hinting semi-claim now with one vote on them.

[Yosarian2]

fos:Iammars

Why would you come out and say "you were waiting for something from the mod" and "someone rolebloced you night one" like that? It sounds like you're trying to hint for some kind of informational role that got role-blocked night 1 and thus got no information, but there would be no logical reason for a townie to make that kind of vauge hinting semi-claim now with one vote on them.

No, I'm just explaining why I wasn't posting much yesterday.

And it's not always information roles that get results.

Why did you come out and say you had a night action at all? Why did you come out and drop all these vauge hints that do not help the town at all but would help the mafia when you only have one vote on you?

It sounds to me like you're very worried about setting up a future role claim and not getting lynched, and not at all worried about giving away your "role" to the scum. Therefore, I think you're probably scum.

vote:Iammars

[Yosarian2]

For the last time, I wasn't "hedging". I thought the speed of the bandwagon looked strange, and possibly scum driven, and then later, I thought Nanook's response looked suspicious, and I pointed that out, but of course I wasn't going to hurry up and jump on a bandwagon that I just said was moving faster then I'd like. By the end of the day, I was ready to jump on the bandwagon if Nanook was not going to defend himself, but Armlx finished him off first.

You're just assuming that I'm cop and I'm trying to give vague hints about my role, which is not what I am doing. I am explaining to you my lack of D1 posting. An example of another role which recieves results:
Vengeance, hosted by Vesuvan, which I'm sure that at least one person in here besides me recognizes.

Why are you still hinting about what your role might be?
Your actual role is irrelevent. There was no logical reason for a good guy to claim to have a pro-town role with a night action who got resuts when you didn't have to. You STILL seem to be setting up for some kind of future role claim, and still for no good reason.

[Yosarian2]

I'll

unvote EmpTyger

for the moment.

I think Iammars is being stupid by making vague comments about his role, but that doesn't make him scummy. There's no need to press him for a full role claim right now.

(shrug) I'm not pressing for a full claim. It sounds like if he's scum he's already got a fake claim prepared that he really wants to share anyway. I'm just pushing for him to be lynched. At least until someone can actually give a decent explination for why they think someone else is a better lynch today.

[Yosarian2]

It just seems really weird, though. I know this is at least a triple-edged argument, but when I'm scum sharing my claim (regardless of how good I think it is) is the last thing I want to do; I'd much rather get through the game without having to. Though I admit being annoyed when I get nightkilled before using a really good one. If I'm going to die, I'd rather use it first, but not having to put it to the trial trumps all.

(shrug) A really good claim fairly early that you can somehow back up on can get you "confirmed" in people's minds early, which can win you the game if you're scum.

[Yosarian2]

unvote, vote EmpTyger

he's scum

Because he's going after Iammars? Or for some other reason?

[Yosarian2]

Fritzler (abducted that day)
Fuldu
Iammars
Mini Neo
the silent speaker
Yosarian2

Voted VisMaior:
the silent speaker
armlx
Nanook

Has seen the movie AND at least one episode (as of response in thread):
*BabyJesus
*Fuldu
*the silent speaker

Has seen the movie OR at least one episode (but not both):
*EmpTyger
*Peacebringer
*Yosarian2

Has seen NEITHER the movie nor any episodes:
*~deathsquiggle~
*armlx
*bloojay
*d8P
*Dragon Phoenix (at least, not the show)
*Iammars
*Mini Neo
*Thok

Fritzler never said.

Yeah, I've got to say this bandwagon [on Nanook] seems like a bad idea, especally as Nanook seems to be lurking in multiple games right now.

The really interesting thing about this quote is that he wasn't voting at the time and didn't vote in this post. Eventually he said that he found Nanook's reponse suspicious, more than once in fact -- yet never voted him, even when the bandwagon went down all the way to four.

(shrug) I didn't want to lurker-lynch someone who was also hardcore lurking in another game I was playing in, it didn't seem like a good idea. Also, I can't really explain it, but the way the bandwagon developed just...smelled...wrong to me, I had a vauge feeling there were scum pushing the bandwagon. Nanook's later scummy-looking response made me question myself, but I still didn't really want to join the bandwagon.

I think this whole idea here on mafiascum that changing your mind based on new evidence or just generally being unsure is inherently scummy is a bad town stratagy; it tends to lead to bull-headed stubborn townies who refuse change their mind even when they should. If I think one thing at first, and then later evidence causes me to doubt my earlier conclusion, I'll say so. What's wrong with that?

[Yosarian2]

I stand by my prediction - I don't think there can be any two-person mafia group left. Unless BJ is setting up a role claim for himself for later, I think it's safe to leave Iammars alone. They're not working together.

Huh? Why couldn't there be two or more Niska remaining? Unless you are a Niska goon, that seems like a silly comment to make.

unvote Iammars, vote D8P

Yeah, I agree. Usually if you have 2 scum groups in a game this size, average is that they're both 3 person scum groups. I'd like you to explain your comments there.

unvote:Iammars

vote:D&P

[Yosarian2]

I am River Tam, a mason. I will leave it up to the other mason to decide whether to confirm this or not.

Again, it is totally unreasonable to presume we have two three-person mafia groups plus the contract kidnapper. Mafia groups are normally balanced. So we have two two-person mafia groups plus the kidnapper. That's what I said at the start of the day and I stand by it.

And what makes you think the kidnapper was not part of the one mafia group, or at the very least linked to them like a mafia spy or something? Why does any of that preculude the other scum group still having two people left who know who the other one is and will work together? I'm afraid I'm still not seeing your logic here.

Anyway, though, with the mason claim, the logical thing to do is

unvote:D&P

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) Ok, time to go back to my origional suspicion.

vote:iammars

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian2: could you please use the right names? Either d8P or DP, but D&P is not in the game. You're confusing the hell out of me.

Oh, I was reading his name wrong all this time. Sorry.

[Yosarian2]

I am not Zoe.

[Yosarian2]

I'm still very happy with my vote on Iammars. He has done nothing to counteract the suspicious I explained earlier today.

[Yosarian2]

And yet again, PeaceBringer justifies his title.

(EmpTyger investigated Otaku, and claims he's innocent).

bah, I don't want to go re-read.

Vote Iammars then

- bah

Huh? A few posts ago, you voted Otaku because "you didn't like the Iammars wagon". Ok, so you just realized that Otaku isn't a good lynch. But why would that make you join a wagon you just said you don't like?

[Yosarian2]

So, is the current speculation that there are 2 more members left of each of the two scum groups?

[Yosarian2]

So, is the current speculation that there are 2 more members left of each of the two scum groups?

I believe it's considered unclear what to expect of the Blue Sun, given that they'd hired Jubal Early. It might just as easily be two Niska and one Blue Sun remaining. But that assumes that each group started with three (common, but hardly required) and that Early wasn't a recruitable role that they pulled in, well, early.

Ok. The reason I'm asking is because while peacebringer did look scummy yesterday, I can tell you that he did not make one of the kills last night. If each scum group still has 2 people, though, that dosn't actually prove anything.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not either type of scum, but I'll repeat what I said yesterday; I'm willing to let you guys lynch me without a claim, since I have a fairly weak role that's basically unconfirmable.

Ok...I can understand decided to not claim under certian situations; we just had a thread about that on the stratagy forum. But why would you decide not to claim but at the same time say you have a weak role? Why give the scum that information which would help them choose who to nightkill without giving the town any useful information that could help us decide if we should lynch you or not?

[Yosarian2]

tss, Yosarian:
Do you have anything to say about my proposal, seeing as how it concerns you the most?

(shrug) At this point, I think if I claim my name, I might as well give a full claim, because the rest would be pretty obveous. That might not be a terrible thing, as I've already given a pretty strong hint, but I don't really think it would help the town for me to reveal any more information at this moment. Either way, it's probably not a big deal.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian:
Similar to your evidence about Night 3, can you reveal anything potentially useful about what happened Night 2?

(shrug) At this moment in time, I would think that, if I did have any other information, it would be best for me to not share it so I might have a chance of using it to help evaluate other role claims. And if I did not have any other information, it would be best for me to not share that fact either, in order to keep scum off balance when they try to create fake role claims.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah...like I said, while Peacebringer didn't kill anyone last night, he still could be scum, and I don't think we don't want to let him just keep lurking forever.

[Yosarian2]

BabyJ:
I’m most upset at how I handled you at the end of Day 3. I had attributed your defense of Iammars being because you were hinting at being the roleblocker- and I completely forgot to reevaluate after Yosarian’s claim.

Heh...I figured he was defending Iammars because I roleblocked him night 1, and so he knew there was at least one roleblocker in the game, and so I had him pegged as a pro-town power role. (shakes head)

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, very nice job, mods.

I must admit, though, that it's rather disturbing to see the list of night actions and have it say "Yosarian sleeps with BabyJesus".