Committee Mafia - GAME OVER

[Glork]

Question of clarification: Are we electing a new Mayor for every day/night cycle, then? 'Cause the wording is a little confusing, but it would seem that that's how it works.
Or does the Mayor step down, get impeached, etc? I'm confused. :/

Anyway, I wouldn't mind being elected Mayor. If you need to see credentials on my skill with an arbitrarily given perk, go read Kingmaker Mafia.

Vote: Glork

Hurrah!

[Glork]

...if I am not to be elected Mayor, I would love to see MBL as the Mayor for at least a little while. The guy's given me some very good impressions in pretty much every game I've seen him him (whether I was playing that game or not). He may be relatively new to the site, but IMHO, he's easily the best of the recent bunch of Scummers.

[Glork]

Pfft... Now that I've gotten used to your posting, analysis, and playstyle, I've developed a real meta for you.


Seriously, though, I should be the Mayor. I promise not to screw things up too badly.

[Glork]

Nah, he was a Townie in a couple of Newbie games. IIRC, he pwnd some scum then got nightkilled.

[Glork]

Bonus points to Max for being hilarious.

Minus points to Max for implying that he does a poor job as a Townie.

[Glork]

Vote Lordy For Mayor!
I will legalise public nudity!
Dont beat around the bush, show Bush your bush!

I don't think I want to see most of these people naked.....

...but some of them....




<3

[Glork]

Touché.

[Glork]

I think several people need prods. It seems to me that because nobody has gotten role PMs, there are numerous players who may not even be aware of the fact that the game is open right now.

[Glork]

BANDWAGON GLORK, GOGOGOGOGOGO!!


This is like the only situation in which you'll see me telling people to bandwagon me.

[Glork]

FAT AC, I'll cut you a deal. You support me today, and I'll support you tomorrow. Capiche?

[Glork]

Yay, 11 votes for Glork!

[Glork]

Coron's just jealous because I'm cooler, more popular, and more capable of owning this game.



He's probably scum. He just doesn't know it yet.

[Glork]

As far as we know, this is what the Mayor "does."

The town of Indecision has decided to elect a

mayor

, with a term of one day, until they get rid of this threat. The mayor cannot be lynched or targetted at night, nor can they make any night actions of their own. They will have 2 votes during the day.

In the very early game-stages, it's basically a safeguard against nightkills, though it obviously comes at the cost of taking one's night action. As we progress with more role info, the double-voting and unlynchability will definitely come into play. I like it, actually... it's an interesting role/mechanic whose importance/significance shifts as the game evolves.
One problem I forsee is people with power-roles resisting being elected as Mayor. I'm going to suggest ahead of time that nobody protest their own elections, as it may give scum more information than we want to be sharing.

[Glork]

Are we even allowed to choose not to have a mayor? Am I missing something?

[Glork]

*Feels stupid*

[Glork]

Heh, you're just fine, Mudbuck. The mods will be sending out roles soon, we have a Mayor all set up and ready (and trust me, Glork being mayor should be helpful, since he'll sacrifice scummates for us if he is scum ), and now you won't be replaced since you've posted. Just be sure to be active once the game starts!

LIES! THERE SHALL BE NO SUCH SACRIFICES FOR GLORKSCUM IN THIS GAME!! I GO FOR THE FLAWLESS VICTORY!! >=[

[Glork]

MoS said he'd be on vacation until July 3/4.


Calm thyself, Iago.

[Glork]

I think most of us should have figured out how things work 'round here. At least, I'm pretty sure that I have.

Vote: rajrhcpfreak

[Glork]

Unvote
Vote: Max


FoS: PJ

Someone tell me how BLOWING UP A GUY USING A MOLTOV COCKTAIL IS PRO-TOWN!

[Glork]

WIFOM, much?

[Glork]

Guys, seriously.


I don't mean to sound like an ass, but here's my honest opinion: I don't think Max was being *BOLD* by claiming to have targeted (and possibly blown up) a dead man. I think he was being AN ABSOLUTE DIM-WITTED FOOL. Now he's realized his mistake and he's trying to cover for it.


Interesting to note that he gave POOKY a Blow-Up Sex Doll (as he claims) when POOK SHOT KANGA IN THE FLAVOR OF THE DEATH POST. Does this imply that Pooky was in fact roleblocked?





Max is Scum. The people defending him are his scumbuddies. GG, Glork wins. Seriously. Can we lynch Max already?

[Glork]

Also,

Uber-FOS: Mari

for her continued defense of Max. It's like she's *looking* for ways to help Max talk himself out of this situation.

[Glork]

Why the hell are Vigilantes targeting on N1?



Mari and Max are scumbags. I really don't think I need to say this anymore.

[Glork]

You're not thinking outside the box, Yosarian.

This is Committee Mafia. Keep the flavor in mind.

[Glork]

So you're taking it on faith that Max's claim to have targeted Pooky is legit.

[Glork]

Erm, I forgot that Pooky was a Mafia goon. I was thinking that he was one of the dead Docs or something.
My bad, Yos.



Still, I find it alarming that Mari has claimed to be a forced Vig.
Mari, answer me this: Of all the people you could have chosen to target N1, why did you choose Pooky?

[Glork]

So what did you give to Pooky?

[Glork]

Vote: Max

in case I have to do so twice.

[Glork]

Except Max has

not

admittend to any nightkills. He targeted someone, not knowing what the effect it would have, and that person died. Now we know that that person died because a vig killed him.

Yosarian, Max *CLAIMS* to have targeted Pooky. He also claims to have the potential to "blow up" things or people, and now he's not elaborating on what the hell he's talking about. An innocent was blown up last night.

It's safe to say that Max likely did not kill Pooky.
It's far from safe to assume that he's telling the truth about his role or his targets.



I mean really.... the guy blew up Kurtz, and now he's trying to bullshit his way through his blunders. How hard is it to figure this out?

[Glork]

Unvote, Unvote

How certain are you of this, Yosarian?

[Glork]

I'm thinking if there's a committee of forced Vigilantes, we as a whole should be telling them who to target. Limit the number of forced kills (while keeping their identities secret) and churn through the people we want to lynch most.
A very aggressive strategy, but I think it's an approach that we must be taking.


Right now I'm finding Yaw most suspicious. His most recent post especially bugs me. It's like he's trying to find every crappy excuse he can just to lynch Mariyta. Whether Mari would come out D1 as an SK (claiming forced vig) is basically complete WIFOM, and I honestly can't find reasonable cause to be lynching her today.
Yaw, could you sum up any/all rationales you have for wanting to lynch Mariyta today?

Vote: Yaw, Yaw

in the meantime.

[Glork]

Maybe we should just elect her Mayor every day? Then she can't use night actions.


I want to think about whether I like your policy, or whether I feel you're scum going after a a really easy lynch. I also want some outside opinions on this matter, for sure.

[Glork]

You're telling me that having 6+ kills a night isn't a problem?
...
But you're talking about there being three extra random kills. That going to hurt.

Like I said, we should be able to avoid that by having all the vigs target the same person every night. That way, there should only be one extra death a night, and we'll be able to pick who it is. I'd rather have one extra kill a night that then waste multiple days lynching pro-town people.

QFFT.

It sounds to me like Yaw knows Mari is as she says, but wants to push the lynch anyway. He's attempting to paint it as a pro-town policy: "She's behaving like an SK, so the right play is to treat her like an SK." If there was one forced vig in the game, I might be willing to agree iwth it. But as Yos said, there's likely a committee of Vigilantes. I've been on the recieving end of a D1 forced vig policy lynch. In the KotOR Mini, people thought I was an SK. They lynched me accordingly on D1. I was a forced vig. It didn't work out. (I'm pretty sure scum won that game.)

My vote stands on Yaw.

My "Mari for Mayor" bit was not intended to be serious. Hence the ":P" face. Raj is misrepresenting me by saying I FoS'd Mari then supported her for mayor.

FoS: Raj

for that and his support of Yaw and his plan.... neither of which I am particularly fond.

I also find it interesting that so many people took the "suggestion" seriously. Making Mari a mayor isn't going to "fix" the problem. I think that the Mayorial position, at this point, should be used as a doc protection. We should be electing someone we think is pro-town to ensure that they aren't killed overnight. Not someone who has a directable (and, potentially, VERY helpful if we as a town use it *properly*) ability and questionable alignment.

I'd rather have the town direct all vig choices during the previous day and elect a mayor whose innocence is more assured. It will accelerate the game, but it won't delay actual scum-hunting. I've decided to let Mari slide for now (though I'm still not happy she randomly chose Pooky, as she claims).

[Glork]

Hmmm...I just looked back at thue rules, and it specfically said the mayor can't be "targeted". Mod, what would happen if a vig tried to target the mayor?

I'd thought about this. I'm pretty sure they have to target somebody else.


But I guess there's no harm in asking the mod to clarify if players are allowed to "target" the Mayor to "waste" their night action.

[Glork]

My "Mari for Mayor" bit was not intended to be serious. Hence the ":P" face. Raj is misrepresenting me by saying I FoS'd Mari then supported her for mayor.

FoS: Raj

for that and his support of Yaw and his plan.... neither of which I am particularly fond.

thats not what i ment.

you try to distance yourself by fosing mari and pj by fosing them

but then you 3 start attacking yaw and me together.

Raj, you should know me better than that. I know this is complete 100% WIFOM, but I'm not blatant enough to FoS two of my scumbuddies while attacking the same player(s) as them.

Additionally -- you say we three are attacking you and Yaw together. I didn't "attack you" until I thought you had misrepresented me, so that doesn't even hold. All I did was FoS you for what I thought was a misrepresentation of one of my posts. Now you're doing it again by saying I attacked you with PJ/Mari.

if the mayor wasnt ment to be serious then why didnt you say it sooner and tell people that making the vig the mayor wont work? if its not serious then dont start saying crap like that.

Oh, because you NEVER make a joke in a game.
I made a joke and by the time I had read the thread to make my very next post, a few other players had already taken it as a real idea and began agreeing with/discussing it. Don't try to make that look like hypocrisy when dealing with Mari.



FATty seems to have reiterated the points that I was trying to make all game when attacking Max. With all the evidence I can muster pointing to "Max is lying scum," I'd like to know why Yosarian claims Max didnt' kill Kurtz .

Dear Everybody Trying to Discredit the "Max is Scum" case by saying that Max did not Kill Pooky: PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT MAX LIED ABOUT WHO HE TARGETED. THE ARGUMENT THAT FATTY IS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT MAX BLEW UP COLONEL KURTZ. HE DID NOT SHOOT POOKY.

Thank you, that is all.

1 -- Mariyta admitted to killing last night (which ought to be enough as it is, unless we're talking about IS).
2 -- Mariyta stated she must kill each night.

That's the definition of a scum role! It's clearly anti-town!

Read this role.
Must kill every night (meaning I would have killed N0 if we'd had one).
Pro-town.
How is Mari's claim the "definition" of a scum role? A killing role is not inherently a scum role.
You're not making any sense, Yaw. I know you're better than this.

[Glork]

Hehehe, I remember that game all too well Glork . That forced vig gave us mafia an easy lynch.

Which means it could happen again.

And who is pushing the Mari lynch most fervently?


Oh yeah. YawScum.

[Glork]

Mostly 'cause he's scum, right?

[Glork]

FA here's an idea how often do you see mafia inventors apart from in games that I host IRL
how often do you see someone

claim

they killed someone yet still say someone else did
and how often after 2 claims do

scum

try and get an easy lynch on a townie in bandwagon

EVERY TIME

vote: FATty ACid

Dear Everybody Trying to Discredit the "Max is Scum" case by saying that Max did not Kill Pooky: PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT MAX LIED ABOUT WHO HE TARGETED. THE ARGUMENT THAT FATTY IS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT MAX BLEW UP COLONEL KURTZ. HE DID NOT SHOOT POOKY.

Thank you, that is all.

*Ahem*

[Glork]

Uh, wtf, Max?


You're still trying to discredit FA by saying "But I didn't kill Pooky. Mariyta claims to have killed Pooky!"


WE F***ING KNOW THAT ALREADY. YOU KILLED COLONEL KURTZ BY EXPLODING HIM, AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO CLAIM THAT YOU GAVE POOKY A BLOW-UP DOLL.

[Glork]

So you're saying Mariyta killed her own scumbuddy?


MBL, you're being an idiot.

[Glork]

What's "all the evidence?"

The only "evidence" there is is Max's own word (which we all *know* a good player won't take at face-value), and Mudbuck's statement that there *might* be a flavorful link involving a blowup doll. FATty has already demonstrated Max's inconsistencies. He's been caught in lies after saying he might blow things up, THEN suggesting that he's an inventor with a blow-up doll ONLY AFTER FATTY ALREADY JOKED ABOUT IT BEING A BLOWUP DOLL.

Unvote Yaw
Vote: Max/Max

Yaw can wait until tomorrow. Max is so obviously scum, it's ridiculous.

[Glork]

No. I think that both Yaw and Max are scum. I've thought that Max was scum pretty much all game. Yaw's attempts to get Mari killed just put him ahead on my priority list.


I'm really perfectly willing to lynch either one at this point. They're both scum, it's clear as day. I just wish the town wasn't being so idiotic, and that they'd start being LOGICAL for once.

[Glork]

Yos has already explained that the flavor of the game leans heavily towards the existence of one scumgroup. Until I see proof otherwise, I've decided to operate under that assumption.

I like arguing in circles!

I'm curious to know why you're making it so apparent that Yos is scum protecting Max. I'm not really picking up scumvibes from him, though I have admittedly been very tunnel-visioned in getting Max/Yaw lynched. *shrug*

Confidence is how I play, MBL. You remember Kingmaker. How about Cultural Revolution Mafia? (CES and I basically wagoned and directed the town as we felt appropriate. We significantly influenced 4 of 5 consecutive scumlynches to start the game before we were nightkilled.)

[Glork]

Either! Both! TRUST IN THE GLORKDAR, IT SHALL NOT FAIL YOU!




Should I be pushing these lynches harder, or do you people get the picture?

[Glork]

Well, I do have one theory regarding the number of deaths... but it's not very well-developed yet.

Bascially, I'm thinking that if there are committees for mutiple similar/same pro-town roles, there might be a similarly-functioning committee for the mafiosi. I'm not yet sure how the mechanics of this would work out, though. But my best guess is that it could result in multiple kills by a single committee of mafiosi.

2-3 kills by the Mafia, 1-2 kills by Vigilantes, possibly an SK kill, maybe some failed (doc-protected? roleblocked?) kills that we don't even know about.





I'm gonna go figure out who needs to be prodded. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fall into that category right now.

[Glork]

Okay, the prodlist was a lot shorter than I'd expected. I guess this game is moving quickly enough that it seems like not many people are posting, when in reality almost everyone has checked in within the past 4 or 5 days.


I would like

MODPRODS

on the following players:
Blackberry (last post July 17)
Vaughn (last post July 20, but has only that one post all game -- and it was simply to say "I'm here, I'll join the discussion." Missed mayorial voting entirely)

[Glork]

....actually, Yaw... Coron's right:

Well, I don't know if he's scum or not, but I can tell you one thing. Max did not target Kurtz last night.

Hmm, I'd forgotten about that. I've been careless...
I guess this is where MBL got the "Yos is protecting Max" theory.

Unvote
Vote: Yaw, Yaw

I do think that Yos has some credibility and if he says that Max didn't target Kurtz, I'm willing to put it off for the time being.


Also,

Strong FoS: Bogre

. I don't like the whole "Let's see if we can trust our mayor" post he made. It sounds like he wants to lynch Max and push it off as my fault if/when Max turns up pro-town. That bothers me... a lot.

[Glork]

FoS: Masterchief

[Glork]

Chronology of Glork's vote-switching:
On Max for talking about blowing things up.
Moved from Max to Yaw after Yosarian posted that Max could not have targeted Kurtz.
Moved from Yaw back to Max after re-convincing myself that Max was scum (having forgotten Yos's post).
Moved from Max back to Yaw after Coron reminded me of Yos's post.

Does that explain it thoroughly enough?


I've still got reservations about Max. But Yos's statement just nullifies any argument I have against Max, assuming Yos's information is legit. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on them for the time being.

[Glork]

I was under the impression that the Cop Commissioner would be the one recieving investigation results.

The "If you lynch me, you'll be sorry!" post doesn't help much either.


But in the interest of avoiding a lynch before I've had a chance to thoroughly read and respond to everything that has been said, I'm going to

Unvote

for now. Should be back Monday mid-late afternoon. Expect a thorough analysis and a final decision some time then.

[Glork]

Erm, County Sheriff, not Cop Commissioner. Getting my role names mixed up... >.<

[Glork]

I donno, I'm still very, very uneasy about Yaw's role.


Here's the big problem, though: It's impossible to confirm or deny Yaw's claim until he dies. If Rosso was the "cop result reciever" as the County Sheriff (which is what I'm leaning towards believing), then there's nobody to counter-claim Yaw. If Yaw is legit, and Rosso had some other role... there's nobody to counter-claim Yaw. Investigating Yaw won't yield results, because he'll just proclaim himself innocent.


I think we should keep Yaw alive and continually force him to claim his cop results (either players' names, innocent/guilty results, or both, depending on the situation). If he's scum, sooner or later he's going to find himself trapped or tripped up. If Yaw is scum, there is virtually no way that he would be able to continually make up targets/results. He'd most likely have to claim honest results. If he calls a guilty result on an innocent, the innocent cries out, we test one or the other, and find out if Yaw is legit or not. If Yaw claims an innocent on a guilty, we use that player's ultimate death to keep a tally of Yaw's accuracy.



All in all, I really don't believe Yaw's claim. I think Rosso was the "result reciever" that we're looking for. But I firmly believe that the *smart* play is to keep Yaw alive and continually test/pressure him. So I'll shelve my suspicions for now.



Moving on...

Vote: Masterchief

MC's vote on Max was absolutely terrible... not a shred of truthery in the post. And even though it's been pointed out how wrong MC is, he has posted twice since then and failed to move his vote off of Max.

[Glork]

Wait... are you assuming that the cops discuss at night and choose someone to investigate? Wouldn't that mean that the cops all know each others' identities?


I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of the committee mechanic is a little... wrong.

[Glork]

Lynch Masterchief. Vig Bogre.


That's how I'd run things if it were up to me.

[Glork]

Out of curiousity, why would you want me vigged? It looks like you are just trying to throw off suspicion to me incase the Masterchief lynch turns out to be wrong, Glork, because I've been voting the same way as you.

You've been following me around singing "let's test Glork, let's test Glork!" I said before and I'll say it again: I get the distinct feeling that you're the one who wants to push off a mislynch against me (or to claim, "Look I was right too!" if things turn up right). I should clarify that I think Bogre should be vigged if MC actually turns up pro-town. I think that the two deaths plus his Glork-following record (follows me on Max, Yaw, and MC) can shed a lot of light on other players' alignments.

[Glork]

ok, that confirms my theory.

it is my belief that the members of mafia comitee(s)

DO NOT

know the identities of the other mafia members. if this was well-known, then i guess im slow, because it just dawned on me, and i figured i should post it.

Wait, what?


The reason pro-town players don't know other people in their committees is because each committee could massclaim its members and by process of elimination, the scum would be found.
How does "Vigilantes don't know ohter Vigilantes" translate to "Scum don't know other Scum"?

FoS: slaking_master

for jumping to such a conclusion.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Coron

Care to contribute anything more than that?

[Glork]

Actually, I don't think Vaughn should be vigged tonight. He let off a very subtle pro-town tell. Not one I'll divulge (I like keeping some of my tells secret!), but it's enough that I think he should live... for now.


I'd like to see slaking_master vigged tonight.

[Glork]

....so expressing a dissenting opinion makes me scummy?


Also, your insinuation that I was trying to slide anything by without people noticing is absurd. Should I make this clearer for everyone else?

I THINK THAT VAUGHN IS PRO-TOWN. THUS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE SHOULD BE LYNCHED OR VIGGED. ALTERNATIVELY, I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH HAVING SLAKING_MASTER KILLED TONIGHT.

[Glork]

No, you claimed flavor. The mod made it explicit that claiming flavor will result in a modkill. Now be quiet. You're dead.

Unvote

(Do I need to do that?),

Vote: slaking_master

Now I'm undecided on a vig target tonight. All my leads have dried up or gotten themselves killed...

[Glork]

Armlx asked to be replaced, IIRC.

[Glork]

Post 626 (and the posts quoted therein) are what have me thinking you're scum. You came to what I see as a completely illogical conclusion that because town committees are member-anonymous, the scum committee must be.

Upon my questioning of that, you backpedaled a bit and said, "Well, maybe I was wrong. I want outside opinions."

You know what I see this as? I see it as a possible signal. "Hey guys, I know you're out there and I don't know who you are, but I'm on your side. Don't kill me."
Present the idea as a theory/conclusion at which you arrived -- even if it's not popular, you've gotten your point across to your scumbuddies.



Let me put it this way. If the scum don't know each other, then I'm absolutely certain that slaking_master is among them.
And if slaking does turn up scum, I'll be guessing that the scum don't know each other.

At this point, I feel it's worth taking a look into. There's a lot of good info that can come from knowing Slaking's alignment. And if I'm right, we'll have nailed a scumbag *and* we'll have info regarding the nature of the Mafia.

[Glork]

Let me put it this way. If the scum don't know each other, then I'm absolutely certain that slaking_master is among them.
And if slaking does turn up scum, I'll be guessing that the scum don't know each other.

Yaark! I meant that to be the other way around:
In my eyes, SlakingScum implies ScumDon'tKnowEachOther.
ScumDon'tKnowEachOther may imply SlakingScum. I'm inclined to believe that this is the case.

[Glork]

Granted, I don't like Bogre's behavior either, but I find it difficult to see how Glork is justified in calling out people who trust him when he

tells

people to trust him.

You know the amount of rhetoric and hyperbole I use, PJ. Telling people to trust me is my way of saying "I am extremely convicted in my veiws on these people."

Still, I'll concede my case against Bogre, given the context you provided. A player who doesn't know my play can't be expected to take a post like that wiht a grain of salt, and I understand that.

Also, Glork:

where

did you see a "pro-town tell" for Vaughn? From what I can see, he's just following bandwagons, and whenever somebody FoS's him or suggests he be Vigged, he pops in to say "no, don't do that". He is basically lurking. If you don't explain your reasoning, I will act is if you have no reasoning at all. Fair warning.

Understood. I'll state that I think Vaughn is pro-town, but I won't elaborate in this instance. Obviously, it doesn't look like you're just going to take my opinion on faith here, but I have my reasons. I believe they are better kept hidden at this time.

Seeing as you've pushed wagons on FOUR seperate people I think are town (Max, Mariyta, Bogre, Masterchief), I hope you understand why I think you are

blowing smoke

. I still think there is a fair chance Yaw is scum, but I'm sure I'll just be screaming into the wind if I try to switch to that direction again.

Our opinions differ. Max is still on my list, but until I know more about Yos's claim that Max didn't target Kurtz, I'm willing to let that lie for now. Given the MC claim/modkill thing, I now believe that he was town. Mariyta's probably a vig, and Bogre's still questionable.

I think Glork is

consistently

going after the inexperienced players. Max, Bogre, Masterchief, Slaking_Master... it's like he's looking at the sign-up list and picking on the easiest targets.

You just talked about my suspicions of Yaw, then talked about my going after inexperienced players. Que? No comprende.
Not going after inexperienced players, sir. Just the ones that come across as scummy.



Mari: Don't vig Mudbuck. Berry? Eh, ambivalent. I wish he'd stop lurking and contribute. I'd especially like him to explain why he moved to Coron.

[Glork]

I think Glork is

consistently

going after the inexperienced players. Max, Bogre, Masterchief, Slaking_Master... it's like he's looking at the sign-up list and picking on the easiest targets.

You just talked about my suspicions of Yaw, then talked about my going after inexperienced players. Que? No comprende.
Not going after inexperienced players, sir. Just the ones that come across as scummy.

Fixed... had Yaw on the brain, obv.

[Glork]

Question: Why do you still think Max can be scum, but you don't want Mudbuck to be Vigged? Mudbuck is the player who is backing up (at least) the blow-up doll portion of Max's claim. Or did you forget? It seems silly to advocate one as possible scum and not the other without elaborating as to why. If Max is scum, I think Mudbuck is more likely to be scum and vice versa.

Wrong.

Read Mudbuck's post. He does not have the same role as Max. You can figure out Mudbuck's role by looking elsewhere in the thread. I know I've figured it out already, and you should be able to without too much trouble.

I can't have Max (claimed an easily testable role) and I can't have Yaw (potentially *very* important pro-town role that is extremely hard to fake as scum). So I've begun looking elsewhere. MC happened to be wrong. I think I'm right about slaking.
Are you saying, PJ, that because you don't agree with my opinions of players, you find me to be scummy?

[Glork]

Dammit, I'm not going to claim Mudbuck's role for him just so you get off of *my* case. Outing pro-town roles for my own defense is selfish and stupid -- a bad play for the town (to answer Slaking's request, Part B). All I can say is that based on what Mudbuck has said and what I've read in the thread, I know what his role is and I know him to be innocent.

I'm giving you my reason for not wanting him vigged -- I know him to have a pro-town role. I won't tell you what that role is or why it's not scum (unless there's a chance that this particular "commitee" has dissenters among it), but I wanted to say that he's a bad vig choice. It's the same damned reason I picked up on Vaughn's innocence. I won't claim Vaughn's role either.

[Glork]

Vaughn's Post 634... this one's very, very subtle, and I don't actually *know* Vaughn's specific role. I'd probably understand if nobody trusts me on that one. I guess you'll just have to find out how right I was once Vaughn's dead.

Mudbuck's Post 378 in conjunction with another post made by another player (which I will NOT divulge at this time, since it would make Mudbuck's role painfully obvious). This one is very easy to figure out if you know where to look. Probably moreso for someone like me, but I don't think anybody should have *too* much trouble with it.

[Glork]

PJ, Vaughn has been considered for a vigging this coming night. It only makes sense that Vaughn consider claiming, as a few people have requested that the Vigilantes target him. That's effectively the same as being "under threat of a lynch" since it's distinctly possible that he won't be alive tomorrow.


What Vaughn does is up to him, depending on what kind of danger he thinks he's in.

[Glork]

You can lead a Mari-Vig to scum, but you can't make her shoot.

Just because people have asked for Vaughn to be Vigged doesn't mean Mari has agreed to do so: in fact, she just recently mentioned the two people she was considering Vigging were Blackberry and Mudbuck. There is no incentive for Vaughn to consider claiming.

Are you implying that Mari is the only Vig in the game? Or that her sole opinion should determine where all the Vigilantes shoot?

Sarcastro (Post 610/613), Yosarian2 (Post 618), Mariyta (Post 619 -- though admittedly not her most recent list of targetts), slaking (Post 620), and Drummer (Post 636) have all expressed a willingness to see Vaughn get killed. (Man! It's like an unofficial bandwagon!) What's to say that other Vigilantes won't see these requests and comply? Just because Mari does not have Vaughn on her list right now does not mean he is in no danger of being killed.

FoS: PJ

for making such flawed conjectures and assumptions. There is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE that suggests that Vaughn won't survive the night.

[Glork]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Two things...

First, yes in general, anyone might die overnight. But there is, IMHO, a significantly greater chance that Vaughn will die given how other players have percieved him and given that we have the potential for multiple viggings each night. You're missing my point here (or you're choosing to misrepresent my words).

Secondly, I did not say I want him to claim. In fact, I explicitly said the following:

What Vaughn does is up to him, depending on what kind of danger he thinks he's in.

If Vaughn thinks he's in enough danger of being vigged, I think it might be to the town's advantage if he claimed. I'm not going to make that call for him, though.

[Glork]

I purposely exaggerated the point that anybody "could" die, and that was to make a point. The point is: I don't care what four or five people say offhand. If they want somebody to be Vigged, they ought to vote for that person, or

at least

present a case.

And this is a point that I agree with completey. "Vig a lurker" is just as bad as "lynch a lurker" this early on in the game. In fact, we may want to look at who was on the "Vig Vaughn" brigade. Could be scum pushing the Vigilantes to off extra townies. That's how I feel, anyway.

We also don't know how a Vigilante Committee would work: do they all target different people? Does the person who gets the most Vigilante targets die?

This is true, only the people in the Vig Committee can know how such a committee works. Your point?

Also, although you are clearly "giving Vaughn the choice", it is sounding like:

"Vaughn doesn't have to claim, but if he doesn't, he'll probably die. It's his choice, though."

The word 'duress' crosses my mind, for some reason.

Actually, Vaughn was the first one to bring up his claiming. I am not painting a "claim or be vigged" scenario.

I'm trying to make you realize that Vaughn *does* have a reason for hinting/claiming

(which is the exact opposite of what you said in Post 720). I'm not advocating a claim. I'm not implying that he needs to claim to survive. Again, you're misrepresenting me.

[Glork]

How am I misrepresenting you when I am telling you

my opinion on your actions?

. My opinion could be wrong: but that's the vibe I am getting from you. "I think Vaughn is town, and that he shouldn't claim... but he's probably gonna die if he doesn't claim".

It's the twisting and altering of words. Translating what I said to "he is probably going to die if he doesn't claim" is completely wrong. I never implied a likelihood that Vaughn will get killed. I said there is an increased chance (over another arbitrary/random player), but you're accusing me of painting a "claim or die" scenario when I am not. Stating it as a personal opinion does *NOT* make it any less manipulative or misrepresentative.

And since I am currently suspicious of you being scum and all, I am getting the impression that you would know he is town (within reason: there is nothing stopping him from being a different scum), and so you'll look better after he dies ("I

knew

he was town"), while also getting him to claim with insufficient pressure.

I don't give a damned about "looking better" or "being right." I just don't want pro-town players to die when I think such a death could be easily avoided. I've recognized the possibility and am cautioning against it. You know me, and you know that I am not one for ITYSs (until the game is over ).

You're grasping at straws, PJ. Look at what you just said: "Because I find you suspicious, I'm going to assume that the intent of your actions/words are scummy. Thus, I'm going to assume that you would say something scummy ('I

knew

he was town') in the future to reinforce my claim that you are scum."
Wrong. Flawed argument. Try again, please.

And again, I am not "getting him to claim" by any means.
Stating that a player has incentive to claim if they so desire

IS NOT NEARLY THE SAME AS

telling said player that they need to or should claim if they want to survive.

[Glork]

In my opinion, instead of vaguely hinting that somebody might consider claiming because four or five people (who aren't even voting) say so is pushing with insubstantial pressure. If I were confident Vaughn was town (as you seem to be), I would just look for another, better Vig target, instead of saying "I think Vaughn is town, but he should consider claiming".

Sure, I'll give you two candidates for vigging: Max and Yaw.
Remind me again who you'd like to see Vigged? I can't remember and am too lazy to go back and look through to find your potential candidate(s).

You think is pro-town, and yet you say he should still consider claiming.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying,

if he thinks that he will be vigged overnight

. How many times do I have to repeat this? Should I say it in gigantic letters? Should I word it a thousand different ways? Type it in a thousand different languages? In a thousand different colors?

Answer me this question: Would you rather A) see a player you think is pro-town claim and survive, or B) sit quietly and die because of a pro-town force?

(I'm going to assume that you, like me, would not want to see a pro-town player killed by a pro-town player.)
Now, having said that, do you agree that if the odds of B happening are high enough in Vaughn's case, that GIVEN I THINK THAT VAUGHN IS PRO-TOWN, I would have an interest in ensuring his survival?


You say that it's not enough to warrant Vaughn's claim-considerations. I respectfully disagree. A four or five person bloc of "Vig Vaughn" advocates is pretty significant, considering almost nobody else has weighed in on the subject.



So, in summary, and for the last time(s):

I think that, if Vaughn feels the chances of him being vigged overnight are significant enough, he has considerable incentive to claim in order to get the "Vig Vaughn" advocates off of his back. I feel this way because I think Vaughn is pro-town and do not want to see him vigged.

Je pense que, si Vaughn se sent les chances de lui étant tué durant la nuit sont assez significatives, il a l'incitation considérable à prétendre afin de descendre des avocats de "Vig Vaughn" à lui en arrière. Je me sens de cette façon parce que je pense Vaughn est pro-ville et ne veut pas voir qu'il a tué.

Pienso que, si Vaughn se siente las ocasiones de él que es matado durante la noche son bastante significativas, él tienen incentivo considerable a demandar para bajar de los abogados de "Vig Vaughn" el suyo detrás. Me siento esta manera porque pienso Vaughn es favorable-ciudad y no desea considerar que él matara.

Ich denke, daß, wenn Vaughn glaubt, die Wahrscheinlichkeiten von ihm über Nacht tötend genug, er hat den beträchtlichen, um bedeutend sind die "Vig Vaughn" Fürsprecher zu behaupten Anreiz, von seinem weg zu erhalten zurück. Ich glaube, auf diese Weise, weil ich denke, Vaughn Pro-Stadt ist und nicht sehen möchte, daß er tötete.

Penso che, se Vaughn ritiene le probabilità di lui che è ucciso durante la notte siano abbastanza significative, lui abbia motivo considerevole da sostenere per ottenere "i fautori di Vig Vaughn" fuori di suo indietro. Ritengo questo senso perché penso Vaughn è pro-città e che non desidera vedere che lui ha ucciso.

Ik denk dat, als Vaughn voelt de kansen van hem die 's nachts significant genoeg zijn wordt gedood, heeft hij aanzienlijke aansporing eisen om de verdedigers van "Vig Vaughn" van zijn rug weg te worden. Ik vind deze manier omdat ik Vaughn denk pro-stad is en wil niet gedood hem zien.

Я думаю что, если Vaughn чувствует, то шансы его будучи убиванным всю ночь значительно достаточно, он имеют значительный стимул, котор нужно востребовать получить "защитников Vig Vaughn" его назад. Я чувствую этой дорогой потому что я думаю Vaughn будет про-gorodok и не хочет увидеть он убило.

Σκέφτομαι ότι, εάν Vaughn αισθάνεται οι πιθανότητες του που σκοτώνεται ολονυκτίς είναι αρκετά σημαντικές, έχει το ιδιαίτερο κίνητρο για να απαιτήσει ότι αποκτώνται οι συνήγοροι "Vig Vaughn" μακριά της πλάτης του. Αισθάνομαι ότι αυτός ο τρόπος επειδή σκέφτομαι Vaughn είναι υπέρ-πόλη και δεν θέλω να τον δω που σκοτώνεται.

**DISCLAIMER: I used babelfish for the translations and have no idea how accurate they are. I apologize in advance for any horrendous translation errors on behalf of babelfish, and I strongly recommend that you use the original (English, Red) version as the official statement of my opinion. Thank you, and have a nice day.**

[Glork]

Well, um... yeah, obviously I'd like to see more contributions from Vaughn. I was just commenting on the game-state as it rests now, with some players wanting him vigged. That and I sorta feel like even if Vaughn does contribute, the damage of his early lurking will have been done.


Anyway, I hope you see the point I was trying to make (and I hope you enjoyed the lighthearted spin I put on the end of it ).

[Glork]

Blackberry Vigging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vaughn Vigging. That I can *certainly* live with.


Yos, I've made my stance regarding Yaw/Max quite clear already: Though I *want* Max and Yaw dead because I think they're scum, I realize that the *smart* play is to keep them alive. But that's nothing to stop me from voicing my opinion that I'd *like* to see them killed. If I had things my way, I would vig one of them.

[Glork]

Aren't chances high that Vaughn won't really last long in this game? He's already being pointed to and it seems he rarely lasts to endgame, so what makes him so worth saving today? I think a similar argument can be said about Glork. The fact that Glork was voted mayor means that many players wanted him alive at least to the first day.

I don't see how Glork as town will last to the next day this game

. These same players, if anti-town, will now want him dead. Thus, I will not support a Glork lynch nor a Vaughn lynch.

Is it just me or is Pablito saying "If Glork and/or Vaughn survive to late-game, we should kill them because they're probably scum"?


Sounds like a setup to me.

FoS: Pablito

[Glork]

Add chronic bandwagoning to Slaking's list of sins.
3rdish on the Yaw wagon.
5th/6th on the Masterchief wagon (fifth person, sixth vote since I count double).
Remember his place on the unofficial "Vig Vaughn" wagon? 4th.
...and now Pablito? Fifth.



Someone remind me why he's not dead yet. For serious.

[Glork]

Wait, so the chic thing is to lynch Pablito and vig Slaking?


I really want it the other way around... I want Slaking's alignment known *BEFORE* we go through with night actions. If Pablito or Berry has to die overnight, so be it. Their alignments are mostly dead-end jobs that will shed much less light on things for us than Slaking's alignment would.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Pablito

I believe that puts him at 9. Let's at least let him fakeclaim something before we kill him off. I guess letting him "defend himself" is the proper thing to do, too.

[Glork]

*sigh*

Unvote: Pablito

.

Why is the two people I most want lynched are about to 'confirm' each other? Argh.

QFT'd!

Unvote

, pending happy investigation revealing goodiness. Though Pablito might be a necessary kill (lynch or vig) down the road if he and Yaw are going to "clear" each other like this.

[Glork]

....




For the record, that solidifies my belief that at least one of Yaw/Pablito are scum.

[Glork]

The town of Indecision has decided to elect a

mayor

that may be the reason.

I think you were supposed to emphasize "TOWN OF INDECISION," not Mayor.

[Glork]

Uh, MoS has posted in his other games that he's taking off for like six days.... and I'm not sure if Ibby can give Pablito the answers he's looking for.

[Glork]

FOS: Glork for scattershot attacks

Vote: slaking_master

[Glork]

Lynch Slaking, vig elsewhere.


I'm really out of ideas at this point, if we're not going to get Max or Yaw. I'll have to remind myself of the case PJ made against Raj. I remember loosely agreeing with it, but I was definitely more focused on Max and/or Yaw at the time...

[Glork]

Uh, Drummer.... we have two dead cops already. How could Pablito be the only cop?

[Glork]

Personally.... I don't like it.

If you're scum, and Yaw is legit, and Yaw gets a different result, you can weasel your way out of trouble by going, "Welp, there must be other cops out there! That'd explain the discrepancy between the results."

If Yaw's scum, and you're legit, the same thing works, but in his favor.

If you're both scum, you could potentially "confirm" each other, effectively drawing some (all?) of the doc protection and leading the town around.

If you're both town.... well, yippee. I don't think anybody's going to take your word at face value.

[Glork]

Max is in this game? And he's still alive?

Urge to lynch: rising.

Welcome to my world.


I think we need some serious modprods... most of the game seems to have died down, and that's a little disconcerting.

[Glork]

*smack Pablito*


Mudbuck ain't scum, yo.

[Glork]

That was helpful.

[Glork]

A bit off? Says you, woman!

Max, Yaw, and Slaking are scum.
Vaughn and Mudbuck are not.

Mark my words. It shall come to be.



.....nobody ever trusts Glorky until it's (almost) too late.

[Glork]

I think I called you pro-town earlier. Lemme go check.

[Glork]

OK, I didn't explicitly. But by the time our earlier exchange was finished, I definitely had a protown feel from you. I probably didn't voice it because nobody was talking about Lynching or Vigging you.



There, happy?

[Glork]

There's probably a reason for that, Yos.

[Glork]

Eh, I'm skeptical at best.

How is a "free agent" chosen to replace the last member of a committee? Is it random? Is it pre-determined? I think you can answer this, since it's based around the *mechanic* of the role, and not the flavor. How does the replacement effect work?

[Glork]

I don't think vanilla townies would become replacements, if anything, I would rather think they'd be called the backup-committee. I find this role claim highly questionable - but of all claims today, this is the most expendable.

This is pretty much my sentiment exactly. The whole "random vanilla townie becomes a power role when a committee dies off" thing doesn't sound at all right. So the scum have to kill off every player as a power role, since 'Nillas will keep on being made into power?


If there's another member of this committee, I would highly suggest one of you come foreward. Otherwise, I definitely believe that Slaking's claim was a shot-in-the-dark attempt at survival. I don't think it's going to pass... my vote stands.

[Glork]

Slaking's just flailing now. Someone finish him please.

[Glork]

How many times do I have to tell you that Mudbuck is a bad kill?

[Glork]

FoS: Yaw

Replacing Blackberry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vigging Blackberry
You should know better than that.

[Glork]

Pretty sure I've been clamoring for the deaths of Max and Yaw for a while now, Yos.

[Glork]

Pretty sure I've been clamoring for the deaths of Max and Yaw for a while now, Yos.

...even though your boy Mudbank who you're so sure is innocent kind of supported Max's claim, and even though Yaw claimed a role that apparently basically has to exist (unless Pablo's lying scum as well, and I doubt they're scum together anyway), and wasn't counterclaimed?

Yes.

Mudbuck's role is not the same as Max's claimed role. That much I am sure of. I think Mudbuck just saw something he recognized in Max's comment "I gave Pooky a blowup sex doll?"
Unfortunately, I really don't think I can get into any more detail without getting somebody anvil'd.

And I've already explained my stance on Yaw -- I think Rosso Carne was the "result reciever," and that Yaw is using Rosso's death and unknown role/ability to fake a claim that he thinks he can get away with.

[Glork]

*Shakes head*

I can't even begin to describe how frustrated I am with PJ and Yos. I've tried hinting at how you can come to the same conclusion that I did. I realize that it's probably not obvious to everyone, but there is a very, very clear way of realizing that Mudbuck is pro-town. As I've said before, it relates to his post concerning Max's claim:

Actually, I think that "blow-up doll" has some relation to my role.

It shares a theme, I think.

(Emphasis mine.)

And another post made by another player. If you can't find this post and still disbelieve me and/or Mudbuck, I will reveal why I know him to be pro-town. However, this will also reveal Mudbuck's role, and I really, really, really, REALLY would rather not just blurt it out to everybody.

[Glork]

FoS: PJ

. You're being ridiculous.


Would it help if I were to say that I have that same role, hence my certainty of his legitimacy?

[Glork]

I certainly hope that you're not attempting to wash your hands of what's happened so far, especially regarding Mudbuck and myself. Instead of the snide, sarcastic comments, it would have been *far* more helpful to acknowledge that you knew what I was getting at much earlier, even if you wanted to point out that you were generally skeptic/disbelieving. Instead, you kept pressing for more. I got the impression that you were oblivious to the point I was trying to make. (Otherwise, I would not have revealed as much as I just did.)


Jusst a few posts ago, you said that you couldn't understand why I would distrust Max and trust Mudbuck. And yet now you say that you knew what I was getting at? That makes no sense whatsoever... if you understand what I was getting at, then why would you feign such ignorance? I know you're more than capable of putting two and two together. I don't believe that you'd go, "Glork has an idea of what Mudbuck's role is, and clearly trusts Mudbuck completely. Yet I have no idea why this would be the case" as you read and interpreted my hints.


I really want an explanation of what your train of thought was regarding this whole matter. Because you aren't making any sense to me. Despite all of my hinting, you acted as though you had no idea what I was talking about, and now that I've gone as far as to claim, you say you knew what I was doing but simply disbelieve me.

Why?

[Glork]

I wash my hands of nothing. Next time you think somebody is town, but don't want to explain why, just don't say anything.

Let them defend themselves

, instead of giving cryptic hints of "I think they're town, but I'm not going to tell you why".

What do you think I'm going to do? "Oh, well, Glork thinks he's town, I guess I better just leave him alone and never consider looking at him ever again." That's not how it works.

I tried this already. Remember the last time we went through this series? I cited Mudbuck's post, said that I knew him to be pro-town, but stated that I was not going to simply claim his role for him. Why? Because it would be better for him to step in and defend himself, rather than having someone just bail him out with a roleclaim. As the last exchange seemed to have done *NOTHING* to sway anybody's opinion, and as Mudbuck has done *NOTHING* to defend himself this time, I realized that my efforts were pretty much in vain.
What frustrates me is that I proclaim people to be protown or scum without backing all the fucking time. Usually I get a cursory "eh?" without too much other pushing. Yet for some reason, you've chosen to harp on me for it with regards to both Vaughn and Mudbuck. I state my opinions, and if I don't explain why I feel as I do, there's usually a reason for it. I'm furious that others (especially you, PJ, knowing my playstyle through and through) would fail to take that into account at all. Instead it's "OMG Glork supports someone, but hasn't told us exactly why! He and/or they must be scum!" That's a ridiculous stance to take. The proper thing to do is to file the support/connection away for further use (no, I never asked you to take my innocence/word for granted), but pressing the issue relentlessly is not always going to yield the desired results.

When I made Post 929, I thought Mudbuck was claiming an inventor role with similar inventions to Max, but not exact inventions. Like he had a sex blow-up doll, but some other items instead of the ones Max claimed. Under this line of thought, I did not understand how you could possibly think Mudbuck was town and Max was scum. It made no sense to me. I took "it shares a theme" to mean "he shares some inventions".

Ah. See, I misunderstood this. When you later said "I knew what you thought Mudbuck's role was," I thought you meant that by Post 929 you already did, but couldn't understand why I would support him as such.

When I made Post 934, I realized that you thought Mudbuck was a [EDIT, wow I almost pressed enter here, good thing I used the preview button]. I then got angry because in my mind, you are taking a vague hint as complete truth, and anybody who plays Mafia knows that:

Hinting at a role != Truth

Breadcrumbs do make a role-claim true: you should know, seeing as you don't especially like breadcrumbs in the first place.

I think you're failing to take into account the theme of this game. Committees are going to be made up of several of the same role. When someone sees a breadcrumb and takes it as truth, IMHO the most logical conclusion to make is that they picked up on the crumbs and have the same role. Do you feel otherwise? Did you just overlook the possibility that when you went "Aha! Mudbuck is a _______" you didn't think "Maybe Glork knows Mudbuck is legit because Glork is a ________" too?
Maybe it just seems mind-numbingly obvious to me because I'm on the inside, but I really expected better from you.

When I made Post 937, I obviously knew what role you thought Mudbuck was, and now that you are claiming to have the

same

role, I was frustrated that you even found it necessary to reveal the role you're claiming. And now I'm just in an angry/sarcastic mood because I think the town has lost this game because of lazy playing.

I found it necessary because I saw you as still completely disbelieving of my support of Mudbuck, when I saw (even from an objective standpoint, I'd like to think) a perfectly reasonable manner in which you could conclude what I claimed.
I'll admit that claiming my own role was short-sighted, hasty, and pretty idiotic. But it too was made in a fit of frustration... frustration that you failed to pick up on Mudbuck's role earlier, frustraton that you refused to acknowledge any scenario where I could reasonably support Mudbuck, and frustration over the attitude/wording of your posts.

I was frustrated and still am very frustrated with PJ, and a part of me is beginning to wonder how genuine his words/actions were. I definitely see a case in which PJ would feign ignorance to push me towards the claim (and then act frustrated and blame the town for claiming too much). But I don't know how much I believe that right now. Needless to say, my warm, fuzzy feeling about PJ's alignment has dissipated, and his alignment is much more unclear to me now.



My point this whole time was, that if you thought about a different role with the similar theme, you should be able to know (or at least guess at) Mudbuck's role by looking around. Then, regardless of whether you picked up on the fact that I had the same role (as hinted by the earlier statement of fact: "I know Mudbuck to be pro-town," or my automatic acceptance that MC's modkill was due to a genuine flavor claim), you should be able to take Mudbuck's alleged role into consideration and hopefully back off of Mudbuck.




.....anyway, Mudbuck isn't the play tonight. Or any night.

[Glork]

Here's a tip for the future:

If you are going to make statements about players without presenting a line of reasoning, don't expect

me

to let it slide. Other players might. But I'm not that kind of player.

I'll be sure to take this into consideration, but it isn't going to change the way I do things.

See above. You are frustrated about me seemingly "not knowing your playstyle", and yet you aren't considering

my

playstyle. It's no wonder we end up having so many arguments in games. We think alike in many ways, but we each have boundaries that we seem to cross on one another.

The problem stems from a willingness to accept something given limited (or no) information. I fully recognized that you (and others) might have been (or might still be) unsure of the legitimacy or accuracy of my statements. But instead of "I don't know why he's saying it, so I'm going to force something out of him" (your playstyle), I prefer the "I'm going to file this away and see what happens down the road, unless I can read into something that will give me a definitive answer to what I want to know."

Remember in Kingmaker, when I failed to pick up on Fritz's coptells and ended up forcing him to claim? I feel like the same thing happened here, basically. Instead of going "okay, he's saying something that isn't backed up, but I don't need an *IMMEDIATE* response," I said "crap, I don't know why he's saying this, I'm suspicious." The vast majority of my experiences with the latter train of thought have turned out poorly. This is yet another example of that, which is why my stance has evolved. I don't like the "I must have a reason for everything you're thinking" notion anymore. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree and take that into account both here and in future games.

I think you're not taking into account that Committees

don't know who else is in that Committee

. I hinted at this when I tried to get a wagon on Yaw for his saying "I figured the Committee talked with each other to send in their choice of an investigation target". Somebody can claim your role,

but that doesn't automatically put them into your Committee, nor make them automatically pro-town

.

But PJ... Mudbuck breadcrumbed something that only other members of our committee could possibly know. You yourself said that you thought he had a different role up until I pseudo-claimed for him. I came to the conclusion that the "similar theme" he was talking about was in line with my role information. That's what an ideal breadcrumb should be, shouldn't it? He says something that will only be understood by the people he wants to understand it. To me it added up *PERFECTLY*... no, it didn't

automatically

put him into my Committee, but it was a huge indicator that he had the same role. Explain to me how he can "claim [my] role" and yet not actually claim anything at all. You've got things totally backwards here, I think.

I thought (and I still do) that you were being too hasty on taking Mudbuck's hint as truth, and "proof" that he is town. Of course it crossed my mind that you

might

be the same role as Mudbuck... but it also (surprise, surprise) crossed my mind that you might just be SCUM. Funny how Mafia works that way.

Again, this is where our philosophies clash. I expected you to cut me some slack. You sided with your suspicions more. (Or, at the very least, you voiced your suspicions

much

more than any willingness to believe me that you may have had.)

I understand that there is always that possibility that I'm scum, and I'm not (nor did I ever) want/ask/expect you to discount that possibility altogether. But I just feel that you should have recognized that the *likely* scenario was the former (that Mudbuck and I have the same role), as opposed to the latter (that I'm scum pulling.... some kinda gambit?).

Think what you want, but I don't believe you have

ever

had a "warm, fuzzy feeling about my aligment". I've been searching for scum, and so far as I'm concerned, the pool for possible scum includes

you

, so don't expect me to take your word as Gospel.

I find this very interesting.
First, I had previously stated (after you asked about my opinion on you) that I thought you were pro-town. Do you think I made that stance up? Do you disbelieve that I had thought you were pro-town?
Second, I find it odd that you're going "well I've been searching for scum." Do you feel that I have not? Are my suspicions of Max, Slaking, and Yaw unworthy of "trying to find scum"?
This leads me to wonder what you do think about everything in retrospect. You're still going "I'm not convinced that you're pro-town," but I want to know which one you think is more likely. Are Mudbuck and I gambiting scum, or are we the role I claimed that we are? This is the difference I've been getting at over this entire post. If you took my word for Gospel, I'd be suspicious of you. But if you're going "crap, I'd better push for answers because I think he *might* be scum," then I'd have to question your gameplay.

Apologies for sarcasm, but I am

not

in a good mood right now.

That's funny. I'm not in a particularly good mood either.
Maybe that has to do with feeling like I was forced into claiming two roles because somebody acted on their

paranoia

, rather than

logic

, then got pissed at me for having claimed anything at all.

[Glork]

....well, in my failure to hit the preview button, I asked questions and made points that PJ seems to have considered and answered. My point/opinion on playstyles still stands, though, for the most part... but that's not directly relevant to this game, I think, and is best left for discussion after the game, between PJ and myself.


PJ: I'm not sure I'm prepared to assess every player in the game right now, but I can give it a shot... I'm willing to give my thoughts on as many people as possible, whether substantial or minimal. I'd kinda like to see the game progress a little more, but if you want to go over everything, I'm willing to do so. I've got a vague opinion/notion on just about everybody, but if you can give me some time (potentially a full day or two) before I can start giving full thoughts with confidence.

[Glork]

Glork, about your suspicion of Max, he seemed town to me, so is your suspicion of him based on things not quite matching up with your role? Mudbuck seemed to see it more of a sign of his innocence at least from what I gathered. Can you explain more without giving up more of your role?

It's based on two major inconsistencies I saw throughout his claiming process.

1) When he first claimed, he said his role PM mentioned the words "blow" and "up," but that he did not know what they were referring to. As he claimed more info, he first said something like "I gave Pooky a blowup doll RB?" and then definitively stated that he had a blowup doll (when he was listing his items).

2) This is the big one. Again, when Max first posted, he said he might have killed somebody, but wasn't sure what was going on. When he gave his list of items, he said that he didn't affect his target, but gave them an item to use on other players. This is a stark reversal from how he behaved earlier, when he acted very confused about how his role worked. Did he have some kind of mind-blowing revelation, or is he just changing his story?



The other thing that bothers me is that I can't figure out how an Inventor Committee would work. With all the other Committees, from what I've gathered, there is one distinct way that any choice(s) is/are determined. But that system doesn't have a clear-cut way of fitting in with an Inventor Committee. Something just feels wrong about it.

[Glork]

Mmk, Glork, PJ, NO MORE NOVELS!!!!!!!

And PJ, "acting like open masonry" is only going to make people more suspicious of you two. Sorry.

I'm more concerned that people (especially scum) would just ride out coattails... especially if our suspicions end up being off-base or in discord with each other's.


PJ: I'm still thinking on this "Open Mason" thing. On one hand, I really want to see substantial contributions from other players. On the other hand, I agree that if we're both pro-town, we could work on breaking the game (or at least pushing everyone in the right direction) as early as today.
Also, I guess my stance on you was never made clear, and for that I apologize. The overall impression I've gotten is that you're genuinely trying to find scum, which makes me think you're pro-town. But you've been off-kilter on just enough things (and on important enough topics) that I keep wavering in my stance. You say something that makes me go "WTF? How does that make sense?" and I start to wonder if you're just off-base, or if you're trying to be misleading. So while I've had an overall feeling that you're pro-town, there are definitely things that I've seen and noted.

Anyway... first and foremost, I definitely want to see more reactions from other people regarding everything that has gone down recently. We've got time, and we should be getting everybody's opinions on current events.

[Glork]

Yos: I really don't know the answer to your vig question right now. That's why I want to do a thorough re-read, and that's why

I don't want Slaking lynched until we reach a vig consensus

. In fact, for now I'll

Unvote

, just to make sure we have a buffer -- though I fully intend to place my vote back on Slaking before this day ends.

[Glork]

*Special Rule*

NOTICE: NO FLAVOR IS ALLOWED TO BE CLAIMED. YOU MAY ONLY CLAIM YOUR ROLE SIMPLIFICATIONS (OR FAKE ONES, OBVIOUSLY). SINCE YOU ALL LIVE IN THIS TOWN, EVERYONE "KNOWS" THE "FLAVOR" BEHIND THE ROLES, SO NO FLAVOR CLAIMING IS TO BE ALLOWED. ANY BREACH OF THIS RULE WILL RESULT IN A MODKILL IMMEDIATELY

This seems to indicate that even fake-flavor-claims will result in a modkill, as it breaches the "you may only claim a role simplification" rule.

[Glork]

FoS: PJ

I expect better play than I've seen from you this game, I think you could easily be promoting not-town intrests.

Alko and Glork have both really failed to impress me either way.

Vaughn might be scum, he's sort of seemed scummy to me.

To me right now Yos has seemed kinda protown but not that strongly(basically the vaughn of the other side)

unvote vote:Pj

Funny how I feel almost the exact opposite (except on the Alko point... he's been very lurky, and I'm not sure how I feel about that). I personally would like to see something more substantial from you. What little you have contributed has been poorly elaborated upon (or not explained at all). Simply put, I don't trust your judgement right now, especially given I *know* that at least one of your inklings is off-base.


I'm going to have limited access from this afternoon/evening until as late as Thursday sometime... I'm in the process of packing to move to school next week... and then I jump right into classes on Wednesday. I'm going to

Vote: Slaking

so as not to hinder the progress of the game.

I'm still against a Vaughn vig, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Nightson vig.

[Glork]

You didn't breadcrumb anything. I just picked up what I believe is a pro-town tell from him.

I'm surprised that people are going after Vaughn for lurking... that is not terribly uncommon for him to do, regardless of alignment. I just don't think he's scum right now. Obviously, I'm willing to revise that opinion, but I simply don't think he's a good target... I really can't say much more than that...

[Glork]

Posted in V/LA:

I'm going to have limited access until Wendesday or possibly as late as Thursday, as I am packing for and moving back to the university. (One more year, baby!) I may not be in full-swing for as long as a week or so, as I have a lot to do even when I get back.


I'd like to remain in all of my current games, but if my absence becomes a hinderance, mods may replace me as they see fit.

[Glork]

You've voted and/or FoS'd me for nearly the whole game...

...I'm assuming that means you think I might be scum. Thus, I know you're off-base with that suspicion.




Is that really so hard to understand?

[Glork]

*shrug*
I just think you're being ridiculous. Or scum. I've not yet decided which one.


Also... yes, I know better... but that's not going to stop me from trying/requesting. You never know when something *might* change...

[Glork]

I'll try to do a quick reread to see if I can't find somebody connected with Slaking.

I think that'll be difficult, at best.

[Glork]

Let's just set one target, rather than listing several people we wouldn't mind seeing vigged. That's just asking for multiple viggings overnight, some of which are bound to be against protown players.

[Glork]

For the record, I'm still trying to decide who I most want to see vigged.

[Glork]

MOD(S):

Can we get

replacement

for

Chamber

? His last post was nearly a full month ago, July 21.

I'd like to see Sarcastro looked at tomorrow. He's been fairly lurky thus far, and hasn't struck me as doing anything particularly inspiring. (Very similar to Coron, I feel...)

I'm willing to give Armlx a free pass for the time being. He asked to be replaced, then came back nearly a month later to find that he was still in the game. I want to see some substantial contributions from him tomorrow. But right now, I don't think his absence is indicative of him being scum.

I'm tentatively okay with a

Lordy

vigging, but like Chamber, he has not posted in nearly a full month. (Last post, July 28.) I'd rather see him be

replaced

... but I won't object if everyone decides that he's the right lynch.

I'm also okay with a Raj vigging. I've reviewed his posts, and they've really not struck me as being particularly.... anything.

[Glork]

And by "lynch" in the Lordy paragraph, I obviously meant "vig choice."

[Glork]

Vote: Coron

[Glork]

Yea, it's time to rock and roll.

[Glork]

Oh, we also need to see if Max actually gave anybody an item last night.

DID ANYBODOY RECIEVE AN ITEM FROM MAX'S LIST O'STUFF?

[Glork]

Time for Max to confirm/deny sending spyglasses to RAJ.


Gotta say, Raj's reaction doesn't look good. Squirmy, squirmy scumbaggo? Could be...

[Glork]

More focused Vigilante targeting is also a possibility. If vig counts were 2 and 2 last time around, but everyone hit Lordy this time around, that'd knock off another kill.

[Glork]

That doesn't excuse his behavior. Why are you trying to defend your scumbuddy, Armlx?

[Glork]

I am the confessed Christmas Cult Leader of the entire boards... nothing to do with this particular game, though.

[Glork]

I find it disconcerting that RAJ is willing to "joke" about KILLING PEOPLE:

mariyta, if you keep this up im gonna have to kill you tonite. we are killing max.

Alright, people, that's enough. We don't need any more vigs to claim right now, we get the idea.

im not a vig. i was joking. i really think we need to concentrate how stupid max's blowup doll claim really is.

And yet you get huffy when PJ makes a joke about you killing people?

If that's not a horrendous overreaction, I don't know what is.

Unvote Coron, Vote: RAJ

... though I still feel very uninspired by Coron's play. He basically hasn't contributed anything, does not seem to be on-target with his suspicions at all, and his most recent post just doesn't seem right to me. I can't place my finger on it, but I just don't like Coron's play so far. At all.

[Glork]

....wow. For a pressure-vote to inspire reactions, I think the early votes have really done their trick. Coron's reactions interest me very much.... I don't think I've ever seen him talk this much this early in the game (:P), but at least he's out of the woodwork.

I've read through the series of events a couple of times, and I'm still trying to churn through everything that's been said.

With this in mind PJ could easily bus 2 people from the other mafia without remorse.

Do you have any specific reason (other than the "corrupted mafia thug" vs "syndicate goon" shindig -- which I'm not sure is indicative either way) to believe that there are two mafia groups? It seems as though we've been through this debate before... and as far as I know, we haven't come to a firm conclusion.

2) The fact that you would trust glork to do that in this game, where I've actually found him reasonably suspect is a point against you. Also, sitting back and waiting for other people to either move on or do your dirty work is often, not always, but often, a tactic used by scum.

Needless to say, this interests me. You haven't presented a tangible case against PJ yet, and as far as I know, you've merely voted me and said you want me dead. I know I beat you out in the mayorial election, but that's no reason for unfounded bitterness. If you really do think I'm "reasonably suspect," I'd love to hear the case against me.

This is of course all just speculation, and feel free to counter with anything you can find from the thread. In fact, I would actually be suprised if all the committes were of the equal size, so this isn't really a very solid theory, I just figured I'd toss it out there where you could all see it and call me stupid.

Given the nature of the committees and these game mechancis, I don't think speculation at this point will be terribly frutiful. The number of actions taken by each committee will likely vary from night to night -- we have docs, roleblockers, vigilantes, and at least one mafia. Night actions *will* vary from time to time. Maybe this time around, the doc(s) and/or the roleblockers got luckier. We simply don't know at this point. I don't have a problem with speculation, but I don't want to see anybody use it as a crutch to explain things

until we have a better handle on what's gone one over the course of these nights.

Hey, Glork, at least now I've contributed something, but of course it's scummy because some bull pucky about "responding under pressure" or something like that.

I remember a bunch of times that idiotic arguement is used.

No, your stepping up and saying something makes me quite happy -- you've given me a lot to look at, a lot to work with, and based on

that

, I can try to figure out your alignment. This comment bothers me more than any of your actual contributions -- mainly because you seem to be on the uber-defensive. You seem quite paranoid, as if you're

EXPECTING

us to find you scummy.

So basically PJ, in a game with a one-shot cop, with a result you'd toss out the result because he might be lying scum? I think NOT. *shakes head* You really should quit being so dull man.

I think you're misunderstanding PJ's point. Let me translate what (I believe) PJ was trying to say: "I think there's a good chance Raj is scum. As such is the case, his one-shot cop investigation does not hold enough weight for me to trust until I *know* Raj's alignment one way or another." PJ isn't "toss[ing] out the resut." He's simply going to take it with a grain of salt. Big difference there.

I was voting you at the end of yesterday and voted you in my first post today. That's like saying if I voted you then you voted me then I unvoted and voted you again it was OMGUS. That's pretty much just rediculous. That point is mine. Any arguement you make otherwise is totally BS. The reason I know I won the point isn't because you were silent it was because I was right, as you will notice with the other point that you didn't answer I didn't make such comments, you want to know why? Because there might be perfectly sane arguements against my logic.

I want to comment on this whole "Whose vote is OMGUS?" situation. I don't think either one was. Period. PJ's reasoning for his vote ("I think Coron might be scum, and Glork -- someone I trust -- voted Coron, so I felt comfortable putting a vote on him.") makes sense, and it's something I'm willing to believe. Coron's explanation of why his vote is not OMGUS also makes perfect sense. I don't think that EITHER point/vote was explained very well at all, but I'm thinking they were both reasonable votes. I feel like this entire point started with a misunderstanding and has been a lot of OMGUS-calling based on... nothing. PJ didn't understand Coron's line of reasoning (Hell, I'm not sure I understand it), and Coron didn't understand PJ's line of reasoning. As such is the case,

both

of you thought the other was guilty of OMGUS when, the way I see it, neither of you were.


Now, conclusions... having read everything through a few times, I'm putting Coron in the 50/50 slot as far as Scum/Town.
On one hand, I feel like he's severely overreacted to the "wagon" on him. Two people (PJ and myself) voted for Coron, and he has completely flown off the deep end. His logic has been pretty horrible, and I still feel as if he hasn't explained his suspicions well at all.
On the other hand, Coron's behavior is not inconsistent with a pro-town Coron. If he's pro-town, then obviously he really thinks that PJ and I are scum. If Coron thinks that we're both scum, then it would *perfectly* explain his reaction to our bandwagon of him -- because he thinks he's being run up by two scumbags.
In all, I think that if Coron is pro-town playing/posting on emotions and gut. Playing on gut isn't necessarily a bad thing, though I'd like to point out that Coron has had off-games recently -- Jelly Mafia was just bad, and No Use For A Title was shaky, IMHO. The big thing is, Coron has this tendency to be *VERY* narrow-minded about his opinions: He's right, and if you don't agree with him, you're either wrong or scum. And if you're a respected/reasonable scumhunter and you don't agree with him, you're just scum. Because you're not dumb enough to be wrong as town.
So basically... I think that Coron's actions have been scummy, but my meta on him is not allowing me to commit to him right now.



On a completely different note: I still want Max to come in and claim his target/object-choice. I'd also like him to say whether he's part of a commitee or working solo. (Depending on his answer, I can clear one additoinal player in my mind -- someone I think may also be an Inventor.)


I'd also like to hear from Chamber, MrBuddyLee, Eon, more from Al_Kohaulec, and something from The Goat and Sarcastro. Way too many people sitting around doing nothing lately.

[Glork]

Also,

FOS Glork

for voting Raj. See my reasoning on the last page about this, especially that we are now working on actual good lynches.

No, voting RAJ for overreacting to a joke (when RAJ himself is known to make jokes during games) is not "slightly better than a random lynch." RAJ has behaved scummy. As such is the case, I will not hesitate to vote for him --

BECAUSE I THINK HE IS SCUM

. Voting someone for scummy play is not "random," nor is it scummy. I hold the same policy for Twomz (who always tries to use the "I always act scummy" excuse). Yes, metagame and behavioral patterns should be taken into account. But I feel that RAJ's play transcends my meta against him, and I've come to the conclusion that he is likely scum.

Imma keep looking.

This is what I want to hear. And then I want some more general thoughts. PJ-Coron is *NOT* the only thing we should be looking at right now. Do your re-read and post some thoughts on other people.

[Glork]

FoS: Drummer

[Glork]

Because Vaughn isn't scum.


Haven't I been through this already on D1? Like three times? Please pay attention, Coron. For someone who's accusing PJ and myself of being idiots, you're not doing a very stellar job yourself.

[Glork]

Yaw, I think that you're not seeing the progression of my logic regarding my early suspicions on Slaking.

Slaking presented a very awkward theory ("The mafia members don't know each other") as if it were pretty obvious. He even said (in Post 620) that he wasn't sure if such an idea was "well-known." I balked at this, wondering how Slaking could have arrived at such a conclusion -- I certainly hadn't. So I followed my inklings to their logical conclusion: If a player presents an awkward, different, or unusual theory as being obvious/factual, it may be because they *KNOW* that such a theory is in fact legitimate. It's the same sort of reason people jump on the guy who talks about "the Serial Killer" when the existence of one is not known. Note that Yosarian also questioned Slaking's conclusion in Post 623.

When I pressured Slaking, his reaction was, effectively: "Oh, maybe I'm just wrong. Sorry." Uber-backpedaling is all I got from him. In Post 626, Slaking said he didn't know the members in his committee, so he assumed it was that way for all committees -- including the Mafia. Interestingly enough, Slaking was in fact a part of a scumgroup. In 626, Slaking also said that he "was just theorizing my beliefs on possibilities." Whereas earlier (in 620), he said that his theory was "confirmed." Inconsistencies and backpedaling within a out-of-the-blue theory sent me pinging. I figured something was up.

Consider this, Yaw (or, hell, anybody/everybody else): Now that we know Slaking was scum, what do you think was his purpose by presenting such a theory? Was Slaking signaling to his scumbuddies, or was he trying to use such a "theory" to throw the town in for a loop? I said that "SlakingScum implies ScumDon'tKnowEachOther" because I do not expect that Slaking would be crafty enough to lead the town down a "Scumbuddies don't know each other" scenario. Slaking is relatively inexperienced (as far as I can tell, anyway), and I don't believe that he would have knowledge of such a mechanic unless it was involved in this game. This is, admittedly, some hardcore metagaming... but I think I believe it right now.


One last thing, regarding this:

Why is the "scum don't know each other" earworm being taken seriously? It would effectively reduce scumhunting down to catching a bunch of SKs. That isn't Mafia at all, because be definition, the minority is informed.

It's happened before, and it could very well happen again -- *especially* given the mechanics of the existing/known committees. I am/have been in two games where a scumgroup had know knowledge of their scumbuddies' identities. Though one game is currently running, I can point you to LyingCheatingScumbag Mafia. Three mafiates -- who didn't know each others' identities. It's far from a standard Mafia mechanic, but it is viable.

Highly unusual

, but viable. That's what made me seriously consider Slaking's "theory." And that's what still has me wondering if his "theory" is a "fact."

[Glork]

Actually, neither "reason" that you've presented is inconsistent with the "Scum Don't Know Each Other" theory.

Slaking calling Mariyta a "known" vigilante can be based on Bogre's modkill combined with Mari's claim/behavior. I certainly thought of Mari as a known non-mafiate at that point in the game.

Suppose Lordy and Slaking were part of this "Mafia who don't know each other" theory. Considering Slaking went "oh, derf, scum don't know each other," Lordy (knowing that he doesn't know his buddies) goes "okay, Slaking's likely in my scumgroup." He won't *KNOW* it for a fact, but he would have reason to believe that Slaking is a scumbuddy. Thus, he'd have reason to divert a Slakingwagon.



Your ignorance regarding theory/strategy is disconcerting, Yaw. You act as if scum have no means of finding their scumbuddies. The committees seem to have snippets of flavor, mechanic-definitions, or other means of linking up. Just as I found Mudbuck based on a very loose connection to the "blow-up doll" theme, other players are perfectly capable of finding thier committee-buddies. Is it so hard to believe that the Mafia can't find each other out by dropping hints and tells?



And I'd still like you to answer the question I just posed:

Why do you think that Slaking presented the theory he did, judging from his relative inexperience and the unusual nature of such a theory?

[Glork]

Correct me if I'm wrong, PJ, but D1 there wasn't much reason (aside from the number of nightkills) to believe that there were two scumgroups at all. Why would Lordy go "which scumgroup" if he thought there was only one?

[Glork]

Um... point taken.

[Glork]

I donno, I still can't get past two things. The first is the question I've already asked myself and everyone else, regarding Slaking's intentions. The second is the flavor of the game description, which explicitly described "a" committee of disgruntled people who wanted to kill everyone else. To me, there are a lot of inconsistencies however we try to look at it.

MOD: Can you give us any confirmation on whether the deceased scum are part of a single scumgroup or multiple scumgroups?

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Drummer

. Choo choo!!

[Glork]

Quick clarification question, Yaw: Are you sure that exactly one of us is scum, or at least one of us? Because it

really

sounds like you're presenting a false dilemma here. I still haven't forgotten about why I think you're scum, and your claims that one of me/Drummer is scum don't really sit well with me.

FoS: Yaw

[Glork]

*Shrug*
There's really not much else I can say in my defense that doesn't get into the WIFOM of me busing Slaking (as a "3 man mafia" buddy?). I can't explain Slaking's wishy-washyness, since I'm not him. If you're going to accuse me of being scum based on Slaking connecting himself to me, that's pretty much out of my hands. If there's anything else you want me to address, state it now.

My thoughts on the nature of the scumgroup(s) are pending a response one way or another from the Mod. I'm pulling back and reassessing my thoughts. I still think that there are signs that point to Slaking's "scum don't know each other" theory, which I have already expressed.

I've already claimed my role if anybody's paying an iota of attention, and it's not substantially powerful. Of course,

Mariyta isn't going to vig me in this game. Ever.

If she implies that she is going to vig me, then Mudbuck and I will be blocking her. I doubt that there is a 4th/5th/6th bloc of Roleblockers who would nullify Mudbuck and myself, so I'd be pretty damned surprised if Mariyta kills me. Yosarian (a dead vig) made the conjecture that there was probably a commitee of 3 vigilantes. I will be blocking Mariyta tonight, unless she gives confirmation that she plans on vigging elsewhere.


If I die, it'll be via lynching or a mafia nightkill. But I'll be DAMNED if I die before I find some more scumbags. And it all starts with Yaw.




First, his behavior towards Mariyta, when she claimed forced vig.

If you

have

to kill every night, then you're a SK. I don't care what it says your alignment is in the role PM. If your role behaves like a SK, we have to treat it like a SK.

I'm open to hearing a bit more explanation from Max. But either Max or Mariyta must be lynched today, because we have to clear the town of killing roles that act in an anti-town way.

She calls Mariyta an SK, despite what her role/alignment says, and claims that "we have to treat" her as though she's a Serial Killer. This has already been addressed, and it's bullshit.
But there's something else that piqued my interest upon seeing this: "

But either Max or Mariyta must be lynched today, because we have to clear the town of killing roles that act in an anti-town way.

" Already, Yaw is setting up black-and-white scenarios for the town, under poorly veiled theories about killing roles. One or the other

MUST

die? We have to go around chasing people who claim to be capable of killing, just because they kill? These kills can't be used in a pro-town way? This is complete and utter bullshit that Yaw was spewing.

We all know she's not mafia, becuase she killed Pooky.

You've never been in a game with multiple mafia groups? Absolute crap logic.

Yaw, on the other hand, seems way too keen to have an easy lynch on day 1 on a known NON-mafia.

Again. It's day 1. HOW THE HELL COULD YOU POSSIBLY

KNOW

SHE'S NOT MAFIA? Obviously, you can't, but you can make guesses based on her not being in your group if you're scum.

FOS: slaking master

A pair of quotes that lend towards Yaw thinking that there may be two mafias. The first can be seen as general caution. The second has some very interesting subtext here. First, he says that Slaking

can't know that Mari's not mafia.

But he then says that Slaking can make a guess if Mari's not in

SLAKING'S MAFIA GROUP.

There is a subconscious implication here that Yaw

KNOWS

of the existence of two scumgroups. Suppse Yaw finds himself in a mafia group of, say, four people. He can guess that there's another scumgroup out there somewhere, since the numbers don't work out with just a 4-man Mafia. He then throws this at Slaking, going "You can't know she's not scum, but you can know she's not in your particular scumgroup, thus making her less likely to be scum." Freudian slip, much?

The best plan is to lynch Mariyta. She clearly kills at night, so she is either scum or a forced vig. If she's scum, we catch scum. If for some strange reason the mod was bad enough to screw up the alignment on her SK PM, then Yosarian and slaking_master are highly likely to be scum (well, they're pretty likely regardless, but this makes it go up) and we go after one of them next.

Again, Yaw is setting up a series of lynches based on the results of different players. "If Mari isn't scum, then we should lynch Yos and/or Slaking."

Another limiting false dilemma.

Yaw's acting as if the town must follow a course of action, and trying to direct the town towards future lynches.

Yos summed up Yaw's attitude quite nicely in Post 374:

You're just trying to hard to get her lynched, and don't seem to care how or why, and are then attacking anyone who gives a logical reason she shouldn't be lynched. I find your single-minded behavior very suspicious at this point.

Yaw was hell-bent on getting Mari lynched just because she kills. First he tried to set up a "lynch Mari or Max" scenario. Then he tried to lead the town down a "Lynch Mari, then Yos/Slaking" path.

And, of course... now that we all-but-know Mari is a vig, now that Yosarian died as a Vig, and now that Slaking's dead, Yaw's moving on with his plan. But he's stilltrying to direct the lynchings/viggings. "Lynch Drummer, and if he's not scum, vig Glork." Anything to keep the deaths where he wants them to be, right?

Of course, Yaw's unreasonable attacks didn't stop there. Post 375 is basically completely wrong in every way imaginable. He uses three different reasons -- "Mari is a scum killer," "Even if Mari is not a scumkiller, she's incapable of helping the town," and "We should get rid of a killing role to slow the game down, regardless of what Mari's alignment is" -- each of which was absurd and/or flat-out wrong.

This evidence is *highly* with the notion that consistent that, if Yaw is part of a Corrupted Mafia, he'd go after Mariyta for being scum. He's already told us that there are two scumgroups (albeit accidentally), and he knows that Mariyta isn't in his. So regardless of what happens, he knows he's getting a safe lynch. And if he nails Mariyta as scum, he just looks that much better to the town.


Here, I'll re-iterate Post 388, in which Alko (who was scumin KotOR Mafia) and I (the forced vig in KotOR Mafia) reminisced about KotOR Mafia, and how the scum pushed the lynch on the forced vig because it was so mind-numbingly obvious that I was the play. Reminiscent of Yaw's behavior?
No, not at all. [/sarcasm]
Easy lynch. Claimed to be forced to kill, isn't in your scumgroup. No reason *NOT* to go for the lynch if at all possible. Of course, now Yaw's perfectly happy with the existence of a Vigilante. As long as she kills where he wants her to. Whatever happened to "Kill the forced killer," Yaw?


Yaw's Response to my mentioning of KotOR Mafia:

I had never run across that game before. Coron invented a role? No wonder this argument is screwed.

That's a role that shouldn't exist. It consists of the mod deliberately lying to players. It's along the lines of telling a cop he's sane, then giving him the results for an insane cop. (In this case, it's giving a SK the wrong alignment.) If that's what actually happened here, I'll be the first on a bandwagon to lynch the damn mod. I did not sign up for Bastard Mod Mafia.

I don't feel we can take that risk, though. Mariyta was under suspicion (thanks to the typo, which I thought was a silly reason for suspicion) before claiming, and it's equally if not more likely (at least under decent mods) that this is a scum cover. I'm not willing to give someone that admitted to a nightkill and admitted she must nightkill -- which is what scum do -- a free pass.

Translation "Okay, so it's a real role, and perfectly feasable, but I want her lynched anyway." She calls the Forced Viggings a "free pass" for the scum. No. The "free pass" for the scum here is getting a mislynch on the forced vig. Forced or not, vigilantes kill suspicious players. Scum players. Yaw must not have liked that. Not one bit. Get the killer killed, lest (s)he kill you first.






Then there's the roleclaim. The "Cop Result Reciever" roleclaim.

First of all, Yaw, are you a part of a committee?

It's sort of a "yes and no". I'm not officially part of a committee, but my role is such that I can make certain educated conclusions about committees.

In other words, it's an educated conclusion based on what I know about one committee. If it doesn't apply to other committees, I had no way of knowing that. I assumed all committees had a similar setup.

Guess I'd better claim. I'm not a cop, but I get all the night results from their committee. Which is how I can make conclusions about how they operate -- I only got one result. (No, it wasn't a guilty result. No, it wasn't on Mariyta, or Max for that matter.)

Now, can we try to lynch someone who...oh, I don't know...ACTUALLY KILLS PEOPLE?!?

Pretty much. I'm a failsafe. It would be much more interesting if I got more than one result each night and could compile the data (which I suppose is possible if the roleblocking case actually happened), but I can only state what I know.

I don't know what Carne did. It's entirely possible there's another investigative role outside the committee that I have access to the results for. (I've noticed one player hinting at this, at any rate.) It isn't worth my revealing the result I have -- it would only result in setting up a list of people for scum to kill (both the innocent, and anyone who comes out to confirm).

Interesting. So first you claim to get results from all cop investigations, and that you have a working knowledge on how the cop committee works, and then you lament the fact that you can only get one investigation per night. Inconsistencies, much?

I'm going to have fun watching you backpedal madly tomorrow, petroleumjelly. Much laughter will ensue.

"If you lynch me, you'll be sorry!"
Known scumtactic. Fear factor.


Of course, the main sticking point was the "Role Simplification" itself. PJ and I both discussed this, so I'm just going to re-hash an old post of PJ's that points out how "Cop Result Reciever" doesn't fit in with the dead/revealed roles so far:

Actually, I just thought of a better way to say what I'm trying to say.

When (if) Yaw dies, his role is going to be revealed. The deaths we have so far are:

Cop
Doctor
Doctor
County Sheriff
Scum [Corrupted Mafia Thug]

Right now, Yaw is trying to get the town to believe that when he dies, his role will show up as "Cop Result Receiver". And I just don't buy that.

That's

my point.

Yaw's claim is full of shit. He's made a bogus conjecture on how the Cop Committee worked (saying that they discussed their targets, then sent in a single one), and he was inconsistent upon his result-recieving, saying first that he recieved "all" cop results, then that he would only get "one" cop result (which, again, he justified with incorrect reasoning). Everybody who's in a committee knows how the targeting/action system of a commitee works. They also know why it'd be broken to have a committee who discuss with each other at night. (I explained this to Slaking D1 -- that the committees could just claim their members and out eveyrone else by process of elimination.)
Yaw's making this shit up as he goes along. Period.





But... Since Pablito has been outed, I think there's a very easy way of testing Yaw. Simply have them both claim their results to date -- preferrablby near-simultaneously, but Yaw must definitely go first. I'd be surprised if there were more than three "Cops," combined with the "Cop Result Reciever" and the "County Sheriff." If the investigations don't line up, then Yaw's a lying sack of crap. Even if there's a fourth Cop, Yaw should be getting

TWO

results if they investigated different people. And if there's a fifth Cop (and both other cops investigated a different person), then Yaw might be off the hook. But... damn. That'd be pretty powerful. I'm going to play outguess the mod and claim that Pablito, and *POSSIBLY* one other player make up the remainder of our Cop Committee.


Bottom line: I think Yaw's scum. His leading of the town, his misattacks on Mariyta on a variety of crap reasons, his ridiculous role claim, and now his continued attempts to direct the kills using false dilemmas all bother me. I'll probably be called out for OMGUS at some point, but that's not what it is. I've been all over Yaw's ass for bad play all game. The guy's a fucking scumbag, and if you can't see it, you shouldn't be playing the game. I would venture to guess that, if are two scumgroups, he's part of the "Corrupted Mafia," considering his willingess to go after all things "Syndicate."

You can't hide behind "Cop Result Reciever" forever, Yaw. You may have nearly turned the town against me, but now you're pretty much fucked. I don't play nice with people who use shitty logic and direct the town while hiding behind bad claims, all the while trying to get me killed on a connectiono against which I can't even defend myself.

[Glork]

Glork, you're not worth it to save yourself. Why are you so much more important that you'd roleblock the vig just to save yourself? You haven't proven yourself as pro-town and I don't see why you're so exceptional. Having only one roleblocker is decent for the town, we don't particularly need two right now.

I don't find it a waste to block Mariyta if she's going to vig me. It supports my role/claim, and it ensures that I live. It may be a waste of a roleblocking to you, but it most certainly isn't to me. Again... considering Mudbuck understands how I picked out his role so quickly, he obviously believes me, too. Obviously, I cannot say this for sure... but I'd be willing to bet that Mudbuck would block Mari, too, if she were to annoucne me as her vig target.
I know I'm a pro-town Roleblocker. I know that if Mariyta is going to target me, she will kill me unless I block her. Thus, I'm going to do my best to stay alive.

I will not reveal my night choices now that Glork has asked for them. I would've before, but not when one of my top suspects requests it. I urge Yaw to follow suit. However, I would not mind if Yaw alludes to the nature of his night choices or his reactions to them. But I do not want Yaw to give names, as I will not.

I should probably clarify on what I said/meant. Obivously, I think that Yaw is scum. As such is the case, I would like to test him. But I realize that I'm not the only one making the decision here... I was merely proposing a test for

when the time comes

. I said that there is a way feasably test Yaw's claim, and I presented it. I'm not asking that we do so now... but if things with Yaw come to a head, that's how we should go about doing things.

I find it questionable why he's so sure that blocking Mariyta will stop her action though.

That probably has to do with the fact that you're a cop and not a roleblocker. I'm rather sure of how my role works. I'm rather sure of how my commitee works. Thus, I'm rather sure that if Mariyta is roleblocked, she will not kill me. Is that really so hard to understand?

But Glork, how can you attack Yaw but deny me the honor of being attacked as well? Weren't you the first to be attacking my flawed logic last day? Why is it that you seem to be setting up Yaw as scum but fail to add me in as a possible scum buddy who will fake results to make Yaw look better? I would've thought that could be one of your possibilities.

At this point, I find it hard to believe that the two of you would be gambiting as you propose. Any comment about you two being scumbuddies, back on D1, was made more out of frustration... you both seemed individually suspicious to me, and suddenly you were claiming roles that could "confirm" each other. I mentioned the possibility that you were gambiting. And don't get me wrong, that possibility is still there. But I'm less inclined now to believe that you're lying about your role.
That doesn't say the same for Mr. "Cop Result Reciever." His attacks, his logic, and his claim are just... bad... to me. However, his words and actions are consistent with him being scum and there being two scumgroups (which seems to be the general current belief at this time). Therefore, I see great reason to believe that he's leading the town around as a scumbag.

[Glork]

If I die, it'll be via lynching or a mafia nightkill.

But I'll be DAMNED if I die before I find some more scumbags.

And it all starts with Yaw.

How can you say that Glork is acting pro-town when he (see underlined) is playing the game for himself and only secondarily for the town? I thought this game was about the town trying to find scum. If this game was "everyone help Glork find scum so he can claim moral victory", I might not have signed up. Note that this is consistent with my "expendability" statement yesterday about myself. I wish Glork would show a little more humility than this.

I'm keeping my vote, but my view on Glork is now toggling despite this latest display.

You're missing my point, Pablito. As you've said, the goal in this game is for the town to find scum. If I'm slated to be killed, I'm going to try to find scum before I die. Period. That's all I was trying to say with that post. I do not lay down without a fight, and I do not die without trying to help give everyone else some direction before I go. I'm not sure how you got any "selfishness" out of that comment.

[Glork]

Glork please get over yourself this game though. You're a little too arrogant for my tastes and maybe it's just your passion to find scum (which would be indicative of pro-towniness) but I find it offputting and misguiding.

You wouldn't be the first to feel disgruntled with my playstyle. Mlaker hates it. See Graduation Mafia for details. In particular, see D2 when we got in a big tiff, and he accused me of being the "JP Morgan" of mafia, for "monopolizing" the game.

I'm aggresive, passionate, and sometimes more-than-a-little-bit cocky. Yaknow what? It works. Deal.

[Glork]

Hm.... I must've missed Glork's RB claim earlier in the game (there were a couple of pages that I think I missed). If he and Mudbuck are both RBs, than I think I might find him a bit more believable and am no longer necessarily in favor of vigging him.

That's the first time I've actually explicitly claimed my role. I'd uber-hinted towards it, and from the reactions I got, approximately half the town picked up on it.

I still would like to test Yaw's claim, because his reluctance to prove himself makes him more suspiciuos IMO. Pab (unless I missed that also) claimed he still received his own results, so for Yaw to receive them as well seems like a bit of overkill in that area. I would like to try to see him prove his role and alignment.

IIRC, PJ thought that the cops got their own invesetigations, too. Yaw said they might get their own investigations (in addition to Yaw himself getting them).

[Glork]

Ok, a few quick things about the claim at hand: First of all, Drummer didn't claim a Night One target/reason. Who'd you block N1, and why?

Second, his vote for Vaughn does not appear as though it's a direct result of him trying to block Vaughn. It seems more to me that it's a carry-over from Day One (Post 740) then a derivation of "I blocked Vaughn and there were fewer kills last night."

The "I think Slaking" post has already been brought up, but there are two more posts that show a wishy-washy, benefit-of-the-doubt attitude towards Slaking: Post 767 and Post 903. 903 bothers me especially, considering he's like "Slaking seems like he's lying, but meh.... I won't vote him."
And in the meantime (Post 807), Drummer insinuates that we should be offing Pablito (claimed Cop) or at least testing his claim (outing more roles D1).

Another interesting thing to note: Drummer did not even come

close

to saying *ANYTHING* about me or Mudbuck throughout the whole Glork/PJ, Glork-pseudo-claiming bit. I would expect that, after posting Mudbuck's "might be a shared theme" quote, claiming to know his role and why he said what he said, and then practically claiming that role for both of us by virtually screaming "LOOK AT MASTERCHIEF'S ANVIL-CAUSING POST," at the very least, other roleblockers would have picked up on that. Drummer's only responses throughout the whole Glork/PJ thing was one "I don't want to get involved" post (Post 740) and one "I think they're going at it hard, but don't think either of them are particularly scummy" (Post 972). No "I'm leaning towards believing Glork/Mudbuck." No "I think I know what Glork is getting at." Nothing.



Drummer, if you're in my committee, I suggest you do *something* to make me think that you are. Because at this point, I'm not buying it.

[Glork]

I'm about to revote Drummer, mostly for reasons that have been eloquently and extensively phrased above, but mainly for one reason above others: The ratio of claimed roleblockers to players seems remarkably high here. I'd like to hear from more experienced players on that before I vote, though.

Well, let's think about this.

We've got a committee of Doctors, Cops, Roleblockers, and Vigilantes. There was a County Sheriff, and there is a supposed Inventor as well as a supposed Cop Result Reciever. If we assume two mafia groups of 4 players, and guess that Sheriff and Result-Reciever are non-committee players, we're looking at 20 other players, with 5 committees (Doc, Cop, RB, Vig, Inventor). That averages to 4 players per commitee *if* everything is even. At any rate, 4 seems like a pretty decent ballpark number. That may vary based on whether there's a committee of Inventors or just one, and whether there are any other roles (SK? Any Vanilla Townies?) out there. So it's actually

feasable

that Drummer is telling the truth about his role, based on raw numbers alone. I just don't see that being the case.

[Glork]

Oh and BTW, Drummer isn't a RB'er. He's lieing.

How do you know this?

MBL's still in this game?




Why isn't he dead yet?

[Glork]

PJ: I'm not sure if I can get into mechanics details without getting modkilled. (I know MoS only strictly forbid

flavor

mentionings, but mechanics discussions can be just as confirming or revealing.) I will say, however, that the success of a roleblock target depends on being part of the plurality of all roleblock choices. Does that make enough sense to you?


If Drummer were a regular Roleblocker in the RB committee, he would follow the same suit. The fact that he claims his target will be blocked regardless doesn't sit well with me. Also, I'll have to check on whether I could possibly refrain from sending in a nightchoice. I never bothered to ask, considering I was the Mayor for two nights, but that does surprise me given the nature of Mari's role. Or maybe Mudbuck (or even someone else from a committee) could cover this one? It might be interesting to see how mechanics work across different committees.




Of course, now he claims to be a "Parasite" anyway. I'm a little confused here, though I may have just missed reading something: Is Drummer claiming that there's a committee of Parasites? Or is he saying he lied about being part of the Roleblocker Committee, and that he's just a solo Parasite?

You think I would make up a story like that if I was scum? When I already had an RB claim going?

A RB claim that nobody was buying? Yeah I can see you trying another gamble.

QUOTED FOR MOTHER FUCKING TRUTHERY. It's obvious that his RB claim was busted as soon as he made it. Now he's trying to switch stories. I'm hesitant to ask another member of this "Parasite Committee" to claim, but it looks like the only way Drummer would possibly survive.

Right now, I'm thinking we should just go through with this and see how full of shit Drummer really was. My vote stands.

[Glork]

Unvote

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Glork]

Vote: Yaw

Even a role like "Parasite" has a very reasonable role simplification. The truth of this ability further confirms in my eyes that Rosso was our "Result Reciever" and that Yaw's full of shit.

[Glork]

Yes, I do. In a normal game, one can expect a single sane cop. Should that cop die N1, the town would be without an investigation-recieving role.

At this point, I see no reason to think otherwise. Considering Yaw has claimed *NOT* to have the same role as Rosso Carne, and that he's *NOT* part of a committee, and that he's *NOT* a sheriff's deputy (which is what I would expect, if anything), I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I think that Rosso Carne (would have) recieved results from the Cop Committee. I think that Yaw is lying.



Also, your insinuation that we're scumbuddies feigning being RBs is ridiculous. Read the freaking flavor that got Masterchief modkilled. Note the "theme" that Mudbuck said he thought existed between his role and Max's blow-up doll. Note that that comment was made *WELL* in advance of any discussion of MC's role. Hard to fake-breadcrumb an existing role that hasn't been revealed yet.

[Glork]

Alko may be onto something with this Parasite role. I want both Vaughn and Drummer to elaborate as much as possible on the mechanics of their roles. Do the roles switch, alignment and all? Do they just switch abilites?

[Glork]

Sheesh. You really have to stop doing this "anything Yaw says is only valid for 5 minutes" thing.

What exactly are you referring to, and what do you claim I temporarily considered valid?

This doesn't make sense. Other roles aren't part of a committee, but I don't see you harping on Max anymore.

Lies.
I seem to be all over Drummer's ass, and the only reason I'm not questioning Max right now is because HE ISN'T HERE ANYMORE. You can sure as hell bet that the very first thing I ask Max's replacement will be "Who did you target Night 2, and what did you give them?" What makes you think I'm singling you out for not being in a committee? This is a misrepresentation of the basis of my attacks on you.
The "he has claimed *NOT* to be part of a committee" thing was merely to reject Mari's notion that there's a group of result-recievers. You yourself have denied that you're part of a committee of result-recievers. I was reminding Mari of it. Your role, as you claim, is unique in this game as far as any of us can tell. That's the only point I was trying to make.

If I were a backup, I shouldn't have received the results from the first night at all, and yet I did (and pablito is very perceptive to have picked up confirmation that I know who the first night innocent result was). I have no idea what Rosso Carne's role did, but it has nothing to do with the cop committee.

Again, I was merely relaying what you had revealed, Yaw, and showing why Mari's suggestion doesn't make sense. You said you weren't a backup of any sort, and you don't think you have the same role as Rosso had (as you are a "Cop Result Reciever" and Rosso was a County Sheriff).

[Glork]

Nevertheless, your logic doesn't hold up. Do you believe there's a County Sherrif committee? If so and I'm lying, why hasn't one of the remaining Sherrifs come out to nail me? If not, why does my having a non-committee role automatically make me suspicious?

I have a natural predisposition against claims that are not part of a known committee at this point. The Parasite situation is shaky at best. And as far as I can tell, the only committee that would need a non-committee role to fix it is the Cop committee. A County Sheriff would explain that fixing role. I realize that there can be no explanation of Rosso's role until endgame (unless you turn up scum, and we agree that Rosso was the result-reciever), but one cannot ignore the fact that it exists, and that it must have had some purpose.
Again, pending Max's (or his replacement's) confirmation of giving a spyglass to RAJ, I'm willing to drop that and accept the existence of an Inventor (or a committee of Inventors). I'm willing to accept the Parasite claim, although I do not think it is a role that is helpful to the town. Given the nature of the game, in the absence of Rosso's role revelation, I would might be willing to accept your role claim as is. But Rosso's noncommittee, cop-related rolename has been revealed, and IMO it detracts from the credibility of your role.

Let's actually look at what would have to happen for this to be true.

1) I'd have to

know

Rosso Carne had such an ability
2) I'd have to know cops don't receive results, as pablito has claimed
3) I'd have to have confidence I could reproduce the exact list of cop choices when pressed (perhaps it is your contention that I have psychic powers?)

1) That is not an unreasonable conclusion to make. It's certainly the one that I came to, and if I remember correctly, other players came to a simliar conjecture. (EDIT: In Post 161, Alko wondered about the nature/difference between the Sheriff and Cop roles. In Post 164 shows that Bogre was considering the possibility of Rosso being a "copFather" with some role that related to a Cop committee. Raj agreed in the post following immediately thereafter. I thought the same thing, though I never voiced my opinions. Obviously, it's something that people were thinking about, and the conclusion is absolutely reasonable to make,

completely independent of any role information

.)
2) For balance's sake, that cannot be the case unless the cops' sanities are completely screwed up. This has been explained already. If each cop got their own results, the committee itself would be rather broken. We would basically have 3 or 4 regular cops who could likely help confirm each other through discussion as they claimed. Again, it's an obvious/logical conclusion to make.
3) You would not have to produce the exact list. If players do not know the sizes or members of their committee, but they know how the plurality-mechanic works, then they can reasonably assume that your results came from other committee members' targets. This is the only hang-up -- the insinuation that you might need some knowledge of the committee mechanic. But hell, you were going to be lynched anyway. Why not try to claim something that would either A) not be counterclaimed and might work out or B) out the real result-reciever to expose/narrow down roles and targets? A scumbag who claims Doc in a regular game might do so to out the real Doc. Perhaps you wanted to out any possible Result-Obtainer by false claiming.

Even under the only plausible scenario your contention had any chance of being logical, if I were scum with pablito, one of the remaining real cops would have counterclaimed in order to nail both of us. Or do you think we had only one cop? (And yet, you think I'm suspicious for not being in a committee.)

I've already explained that I no longer think that Pablito is scum with you. Thanks for completely ignoring that fact.




Contrary to what you seem to be presenting, my suspicions of you are not based solely on your claim. My insinuations of your fake-claim are the plausable explanation to justify role-wise what I now see as overall suspicious play from you. If I just went "Yaw's scummy because he's leading the town and has been using shitty logic," someone would be bound to ask "Well, Glork, what do you think of his claim?" I'm currently trying to address that question. But it's not *WHY* I suspect you.

I'd like you to address your direction of the lynches and vigges -- your constant presentation of Black-And-White Situations and False Dilemmas. I'm not going to let you strawman your way out of this argument because you think my point against your role claim is weak.

[Glork]

Note: If we're going to go with the Drummer/Vaughn doubleteam, we would need to lynch Drummer (the current Parasite) and Vig Vaughn. That way Drummer can't pass off the Parasite role overnight somehow if we try to vig him. It also allows us to set up an alternat Vig choice depending on the role/alignment outcome of a DrummerParasite lynch. If we find ourselves with reason to believe that Vaughn's now pro-town, then we should be looking to send our vigilantes elsewhere, I think.



Also, to answer PJ's question from earlier: I thought Vaughn was a Doc or *possibly* a Cop, who wanted to avoid claiming so as to prevent the further destruction of his committee. Obviously, I was mistaken there.

[Glork]

It's possible, Pablito, that Rosso relates to another investigative committee. But I have not seen evidene of a Tracker or Gunsmith committee, or any other one for that matter. I'm obviously willing to revise my opinions as we obtain more information.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Drummer

[Glork]

At this point, I'd say Vaughn. The Parasite role concerns me -- parasites are things that feed and grow off of others. It does sound mildly "cultish," as Armlx pointed out. Who knows -- maybe "Corrupted" Mafia Thug indicates recruitment of a similar sense.

Who's my vig target? I need a town consensus

I'd kill glork in your position.

There's no point in Mari trying to vig me. As I've already said, if she even considers vigging me, Mudbuck and I will roleblock her. So unless Mari wants to effectively not-vig, she should be targeting elsewhere.

[Glork]

I'm well aware of this, Chamber. But if Mari says she's going to kill someone and they don't die because she kills me instead, she's going to ruin the rest of the town's ability to trust her judgement/actions (even though they'll likely still accept her role/alignment).

I've considered targeting her tonight regardless of who she announces as her vig target. Like I said, if she even *hints* that she might target me, I'm going to block her. I want an explicit "I will kill X" choice from Mari (with X being another player) or else I'll be targeting her tonight.


At any rate, Chamber, your logic is a little idiotic and completely flawed. If Mari thinks that she has to lie so that I don't block her, then she's accepting that I'm part of the roleblocking committee... Which in turn implies that she believes I'm pro-town... Which implies that she wouldn't be vigging me anyway. She's only going to try to vig me if she thinks I'm *scum* and wants me dead. Not if she thinks I'm a roleblocker and wants me dead.

[Glork]

Then nobody is the mayor tomorrow. This has been addressed already.

[Glork]

Uh. Vig Vaughn, Vote Mari?

[Glork]

Pablito? You target Raj last night?

[Glork]

So which is it? Humorous flavor, or something ridiculous going on?

I'm kinda betting on the latter. This ain't Bastard Mod Mafia. We shouldn't have players waltzing into the game and getting killed.





PJ + Pie, though... Cute.
(Oooh, inspiration! Maybe it's a joke based on the fact that PJ/Pie are hosting Evolution Mafia together? I'm guessing it's a joke.)

[Glork]

I meant "the former." Not "the latter."

[Glork]

I said it before, and I choose to retain this option:

I will not reveal my night choices now that Glork has asked for them. I would've before, but not when one of my top suspects requests it.

Just because Glork gets to be quoted on the front page of the newspaper, it doesn't mean I trust him more.

Umm, if you didn't target Raj, now is the time to say it.

QFFT. Is Yaw legit, or is he trying to bus someone to gain trust?

[Glork]

Well, I did not target Mari.

It's possible that our group ended up blocking multiple people, including Mari. It's also possible that once the Parasite was lynched, a Doc (PJ?) got cold feet and protected Vaughn, thinking that he really is pro-town now. It's also possible (though rather unlikely, IMHO) that there are two other vigilantes, each of which targeted PJ or Max.

Unless other RBs and/or Vigilantes are going to claim (which I am absolutely *NOT* advocating), I don't think we can really figure out what happened with the Vaughnkill that was supposed to happen.

[Glork]

So... you, Pablito, did not target Raj. Correct?

[Glork]

For Glork. A hypothesis.

In a hypothetical situation, let's say Glork is a roleblocker and let's say Vaughn is a parasite who turned into a roleblocker (of whose win condition we are not sure).

Glork votes to roleblock some random person, let's say it was PJ just for now.
Vaughn votes to roleblock Mariyta to protect his win condition or to confirm himself (which is a theory we can throw out now).
mudbuck doesn't vote to roleblock (to be discussed later).
all remaining roleblockers either forgot to vote or helped tie up the choice.

There's a tie vote. Well I'm not a roleblocker so I don't know how this all works, but let's hypothesize that if there's a tie roleblocker vote, all night choices are roleblocked.

That means PJ (or whoever Glork voted) and Mariyta were successfully roleblocked. That would mean Vaughn is still alive.

Well, I was going to address this, but Chamber seems to have cleared up the "Why is Vaughn alive?" issue.

I'm going to venture a guess that Chamber had a roleblocking or protection ability as given by an Inventor (a possibility I meant to bring up in my previous post, but forgot to), and that he used it to save Vaughn.

Now, I've said before that the roleblockers are one of the most expendable night choice committees (sad but fact) since the mayoral position can act as a quasi-roleblock, albeit one with obvious drawbacks. So the roleblocker committee could feasibly only have three members instead of more like the other regular committees because they don't have as much power.

Your logic here is completely backwards. Because Roleblockers are "weaker" roles and they slow down the game if used en masse, there are more likely to be

MORE

roleblockers. Not less. In your typical Mafia game, do you have more Cops and Docs than Townies? No. Because you need weaker roles to dilute the player pool. Granted, this game has different themes/mechanics, but it still seems unlikely that there would be fewer roleblockers. I really don't understand the logic of that assertion at all.

I think Vaughn is lying about his no-action and mudbuck/Glork is lying about being a roleblocker. That is one possible theory of how Vaughn is alive. The only other way is by some other blocking mechanism (Max or some other role) or by doctors inexplicably choosing to protect Vaughn or by Mariyta lying about her role.

I'm curious to know how you arrived at this particular conclusion. It seems as though you've pulled it up out of nowhere.

Fact is, Vaughn is alive and that means someone with a claimed role lied. Mariyta has claimed two scum kills, so I'm more inclined to believe her. Vaughn lying is the more likely possibility - but that means that either he has some sole power that he used himself or someone manipulated the roleblocker committee to help him.

It is not a "fact" that anybody lied. We do not know every night choice that took place. We haven't given everyone a chance to weigh in here. You're really jumping at conclusions here. The

FACT

is, Pablito, that we do NOT know how many people are in each committee. We do NOT know what each player does, or who each player targeted. We do NOT know why there were five kills N1 and only two kills on each subsequent night. We can make educated guesses -- hell, that's what this whole game is about, isn't it? -- but your insinuation that somebody has lied about their role chioce has no FACTUAL backup.


I'm also curious to know this: Why did it take four or five people demanding that you speak before you finally decided it would be best to reveal your investigation choice?



PREVIEW EDIT: Interesting choice, Mudbuck... for what it's worth, I targeted MBL last night. I don't even know if he got RB'd or not. If it was just the two of us, with Vaughn having no-choice'd, I don't even know if MBL would have been blocked or not. This might be something to ask the Mod...

[Glork]

I didn't believe Vaughn going into last night. I never had any intention of saving his ass by blocking Mari, because I was suspicious of how the "Parasite" role worked out. As for why Mudbuck chose to block me, I have no idea why he'd target a fellow roleblocker.

[Glork]

I'd also like you to address my other two points:
1) Your claim that it's a "fact" that somebody lied about their role, when there is no basis to make such a claim.
2) Your continued hesitance to reveal Raj as your investigation choice last night.

[Glork]

Vaughn: Since Drummer became a Parasite, would you expect that his new win condition would have been to steal someone *else's* role?

[Glork]

I'm not sayiing that Vaughn is a cult leader. I just want to know more about the mechanics of the role.

[Glork]

Stealing someone's role sounds like a pathetically easy win condition. I'm not buying it.

That's sortof how I feel. Couldn't we have just set up a chain, then, to have people steal each others' roles and have almost all players win?



There's also a big inconsistency in Vaughn's post here:

Nope, I had the ability to take anyone's role and alignment.

I didn't know that we would trade roles though.

As I've stated, once I infected someone,

I couldn't be re-infected by the parasite.

So you didn't know you'd

TRADE

roles, but you knew that you couldn't be re-infected?

2 + 2. If your role talks about re-infection, your target *MUST* get your role (since there certainly doesn't appear to be a 'committee' of Parasites).



Cult leader is sounding more and more plausable. "Infect" (Recruit) Drummer, then make up some hubbub about stealing his role... so he can back you up, and he comes up as a "Parasite." It's possible, even, that the recruiter role changes hands. I wonder if Vaughn will come up as some kind of infected/diseased player, if we kill him.

I'd like to test Vaughn's roleblocking ability soon, because I'm thinking he's scum.... but roleblockers are the most easily testable. I wouldn't be horribly upset if Vaughn were to die, though, because there's a lot that just isn't adding up.

[Glork]

I'm thinking a roleblocker should be hitting the one we don't lynch tonight (of either raj or Vaughn). It's iffier in raj's case (if he has living partners, one of them would just kill instead), but it's pretty definite if Vaughn isn't lynched.

Already planning on doing so.

Still, I'd also like Mudbuck to agree in-thread that he'll block whichever of Vaughn/RAJ we don't lynch. I'd rather not see him doing something as weird as blocking me again. (And I'm still a little confused as to *why* he chose to block me in particular. Mudbuck, could you explain that a little more clearly? If you think I'm a part of the roleblocking committee, then why would you decide to block me?)




Also, Coron's defense of Vaughn has been noted. If Vaughn turns up the same alignment as Drummer, Coron's definitely jumping up on my list.

[Glork]

i pefer to block raj lynch vaughn

Care to provide an actual defense, or are you just admitting to being scum?

[Glork]

I'm back-ish.

You guys should investigate Sarcastro tonight, for serious. He's pretty obviously scum.

[Glork]

Glork, do you really believe that I'm going to listen to you for investigation help? Nonetheless, I can always be outvoted by other cops.

Not particularly. But that's not going to stop me from looking for scum and expressing my opinions.


Seriously, though. Sarcastro is scum. I just get the feeling that he's trying to protect Raj (as if it were possible). I'm going to look into the rest of his play in a little more detail when I have some more time.

[Glork]

Argument on Nightson?


...que?

[Glork]

I'm really confused. Are you just getting the names mixed up, or am I being stupid?

[Glork]

I'm going to

Vote: Vaughn

I don't think he's a cult leader, though possible, I doubt it. But I am distrustful of him and what he is. I'd rather lynch him, gain information, and get rid of this threat first, in case if leaving him alive could harm us in the long run.

As for Raj, you guys want to lynch him to get one less night kill. If he's mafia, then he has the rest of his group to organize that kill for him. If he's a serial killer, then we'll be blocking him to prevent him from killing anyways, and then we'd lynch him. We could just as easily reverse this, lynch Raj and block Vaughn, but the only thing is that we don't know what could come of letting Vaughn live.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Why does nobody else seem to see this?

The argument as to why Raj is the better lynch is simple.

We have a claimed Result Reciever who claims to have a guilty result on Raj. We have a claimed Cop who confirms that he investigated Raj last night. We will be effectively (though not absoluely) testing three roles (Yaw, Pablito, Raj) with one lynch by lynching Raj. Note Raj's participation today -- he hasn't made any effort to defend himself, to show us why Pablito and/or Yaw might be lying, or to otherwise convince us that he is pro-town. Raj has basically admitted to being scum. He's practically a guaranteed good lynch.

On the other hand, the Vaughn/Parasite situation is very touchy. People have expressed the possibility that Vaughn is a cult leader, or still a parasite (or at the least, anti-town) in some way. But there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding Vaughn's role. Suppose he really is a cult leader. As has been said, blocking him should prevent him from making a recruitment overnight. But the important fact here is that

there is no remote guarantee that Vaughn is a scumbag

, whereas there

IS

such a guarantee with Raj. Remember near the end of CoOps, when JSexton suggested that we off one of TSS/The Goat, instead of lynching Fritzler? I chastised him, pointing out that if there is a (near-)confirmed scumbag, that player is, except in *very* rare endgame situations, a good lynch. Pro-town players will always be looking to lynch scum and to continue examining, questioning, taking actions regarding, and thinking about *possible* scumbags. The people pushing for a Vaughn lynch, IMHO, look and sound like potential scumbags praying for a mislynch, in order to derail the town for just a little bit longer.

There is further evidence against a VaughnLynch as indicated by the following post of Coron's questions and comments about the Parasite role. This one in particular makes me think that all of the Cult Leader talk is way off-base:

Am I the only one other that MoS around here who's played with a parasite before?

Just asking.

Parasite != Cult Leader. That much should be painfully obvious. All the "shouldn't Vaughn leave if his win condition has been fulfilled" talk is crap. Hez won in Best of the Internet after Night One, I believe. He survived most of the game, and he spent that time trying to help the town. A VaughnLynch is simply NOT a good lynch today.

Seriously, though. Sarcastro is scum. I just get the feeling that he's trying to protect Raj (as if it were possible). I'm going to look into the rest of his play in a little more detail when I have some more time.

How exactly is calling for Raj to be blocked tonight and lynched tomorrow "protecting" him? Alko agrees with me, is he scum, too? The simple fact is that getting rid of Vaughn is the better play. Could you explain why you don't think this is the case?

Eh, maybe "protecting" isn't the right word. More like "delaying the inevitable."
Now that you mention it, I'd like to look at Alko too.
As far as why Raj is the play today... see the first half of my post.

[Glork]

FoS: MBL

Please unvote now. I believe that puts Raj at Lynch -1, and he could self-hammer if he wants. There is still *LOTS* to be discussed, and I do not want this cut off before everyone has said what they want to say.

[Glork]

Unvote RAJ for now?

[Glork]

Vaughn, I have another question about the Parasite role. This may or may not have been asked/answered already, but I don't recall, and I'm too lazy to go look.


If a Parasite targets a Mafia member, do you steal their role and make them a Parasite?

[Glork]

Right now, I'm undecided as to a course of action. I'd like to hear a few others weigh in on the current situation. One thing I

do

know, though, is that Pablito should *NOT* reveal his investigation target beforehand. It gives the scum a pretty easy target, depending on who Pab picks to investigate. I think that we should build upon our Blocking and potential Vig choices first, then let Pablito do his thing. Keeps the scums guessing.

[Glork]

Eh... I've been wavering on you/Yaw for some time. But I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that you two could have mutually faked a guilty on Raj, now that he seems to have admitted his own guilt. If you two really are/were double-busing Raj, I suspect that you'll find yourselves outed soon enough. I'm still not 100% sold on you being pro-town, but I'm definitely leaning that way at this point.

I still don't really understand why you didn't say "yes, I investiagted Raj" right off the bat... but the more I think about it, the less I think you're scum.

[Glork]

So if you became a Mafiate, then the person who got your role could out the entire group by claiming?

[Glork]

I still say lynch Raj. I'm ready/willing to vote if necessary.

[Glork]

Alright, let's do this.

HAMMAH Vote: Raj

[Glork]

MOD: Is IS actually alive and in the game? He's not listed anywhere on the player list, alive or dead.

Sarcastro, you can quit pretending to be a doctor. You're going to die today. And if you are in fact a doc (LOLROFLPWND!!1!2), we'll know that something is amiss once you're dead.

Yaw: Next time you have a guilty result, please don't reveal it right away. It generally dulls conversation. I like making people talk before we go for the kill.


Not much to report here. I blocked Vaughn last night, and I plan on doing so again tonight. Again, I'd like Mudbuck to confirm this in-thread.

[Glork]

Eh. He acted like a zombie, and then the mod said he was replacing Coron. I just want clarification.

Also, people in the town should not be asking for results without talking. If we rely on cop information, we're just screwing ourselves over, because you're not likely to live much longer. And I, for one, am not a fan of screwing myself over.

[Glork]

I worry about the existence of a GF since the dead mafia are listed as "syndicate goons". I don't believe that the innocent investigations were GFs though.

I'm not going to pry now, but I'm kinda curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. Investigation-Immunity and/or Nightkill-Immunity are the standards for Godfathers. This is more a note to myself that I may be asking for clarification on this point at some later date.

When have we confirmed that Vaughn is a recruiter and when have we confirmed that the claimed roleblockers are actually roleblocking? I see your point, but there's no 100% certainty.

There's nothing

confirmed

as I don't think there's anybody tracking Mudbuck or myself. But you have my word that I did and will continue to block Vaughn. Mudbuck said yesterday that he would block Vaughn, and I'm asking him to clarify that. There's no "100% certainty," but it's about as certain as it can get.

Regarding rough percentages, I'm also inclined to agree with Armlx. 4 scum/group + 1 Parasite would give 9 scumbags... 9/30 is right between the 25% and 33% "benchmarks" that we tend to use as estimates for guessing scum numbers. I'd guess that after Sarcastro, there are three more scumbags.

Also, regarding Mari as Mayor: Mari's about as confirmed as anybody could be (unless Vaughn does turn out to be a recruiter of some kind). Having her not kill is not the issue here. It's protecting her from nightkills. As long as we've got a confirmed innocent staying alive, lynch-resistant, and double-voting, we're at an advantage. Period. And as the game rolls on, that advantage becomes bigger and bigger. I don't plan on electing anybody but Mari for the rest of the game, unless we decide that we really need to vig somebody (which I don't see happening at this point). And I think that the benefits of having a pro-town mayor far outweigh not having a mayor at all.
Pablitio, you say you want Mari to vig people... do you have somebody specific in mind? Or are you looking to just cull off some of the "scummier" players?

[Glork]

Oh, I realize that GFs are a distinct possibility. I meant more the "investigated innocents aren't likely GFs" part. It just piqued my interest. *shrug*

[Glork]

Sarcastro, you can quit pretending to be a doctor. You're going to die today. And if you are in fact a doc (LOLROFLPWND!!1!2), we'll know that something is amiss once you're dead.

You can believe whatever you want, Glork. I know I'm the obvious lynch for today, and I never denied that.

I hope you feel stupid when you realise I was telling the truth.

I highly doubt that anybody is going to feel "stupid." Misled, yes. If you turn up as a Doc, like I said, we'll know that something was wrong. But we've got a guilty against you from a pretty reliable investigation source. There's no reason to feel stupid for following such a guilty result.



The "You'll be sorry" defense doesn't work. And it's scummy as hell. Not helping your case here, buddy boy.

[Glork]

Vote: Sarcastro

[Glork]

We should get

MODPRODS

on Mudbuck and Chamber, as they have not yet posted today.

[Glork]

Unvote, FoS: Eon

We can't have another self-hammer. Need people to post/check in.

[Glork]

Gotta love the triple-simulpost.

[Glork]

Well, Alko, why don't you start? For all the posting you've done lately, you've done painfully little scumhunting. I wouldn't mind seeing

you

looked at, personally.