Two-Headed Mafia 2 - GAME OVER!

[Mgm]

Hmmm, obviously I don't want to argue my other head, but that wasn't the vote I would've placed. Let's get on the same line here, CES.

[Mgm]

This does indeed bring up the interesting question of what to do when you find one head scummy and the other not so much.

My random vote has become less random.

Simple, decide what you find more convincing. The scumminess of the one head or the innocence of the other. Whatever you believe more should go for both heads.

[Mgm]

Unvote

I'll be doing some analysis on the game within the next 72 hours.
With the discussion I've seen so far, there's plenty of people to investigate before I can go along with a vote.

[Mgm]

Sorry for not posting so much. I'll try to say something useful tonight (in about 10-15 hours).

[Mgm]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

This is the main reason I unvoted way back. I didn't agree with this baseless wagoning, but I had to check. Now I have some excellent info on who joined and who saw SL's scumminess.

sprontalic

Claimed to be clueless then posted a vote for a supposed lurker who made a post 2 above his, while in fact sprontalic himself was lurking big time.

Vote:ShadowLurker; FOS: Sprontalic

.

[Mgm]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

Your post numbres are backwards by the way. Following yours, I provided a reason before it was asked for one yet I called it random afterwards it was asked for one.

Also, you're saying my early vote on H2 da tizzle was baseless yet you don't explain how that makes me scum.

I don't consider overdefensiveness a good reason to vote someone when you are the one causing it in the first place, besides it only came after you repeatedly pressed for their lynch without having any sort of reason besides random.

If I have to explain why using bad reasoning to get someone lynched makes someone scum... I'm afraid I can't help you much. Bad reasoning leading to lynches is what scum do. Ergo someone who does it is scummy.

Also, Eon appears to be getting some heat, and it looks like I missed most of it during my reread. Can someone summarize the reasoning for their suspicions on him?

[Mgm]

Overdefensiveness is a good reason. One vote shouldn't cause overdefensiveness.

I disagree. People who are newbs are still likely to exhibit overdefensiveness as scum than town right out of the gate like that over a

random vote

I'll go back and check, but I believe by the time they started talking they were already the subject of a 3-vote bandwagon. Hardly overdefensiveness over a random vote, as you call it.

As Yosarian said. If you're going to attack someone, they'll naturally going to act defensive (noob or not) especially if they're top of the list before they even spoke.

Calling their response scummy because they are defensive is craplogic. You're being overdefensive about your beliefs yourself whenever someone mentions doubts about them.

And no one is playing the "noob card" either. In fact, in my own experience newbie scum tend to be careful (sometimes too careful) as to not draw too much attention.

[Mgm]

It's interesting that you're saying Eon/re aren't scummy because he is using his confusion as an excuse to vote. I just don't get why you think that isn't scummy. Eon is just plain looking for an excuse to vote. He should've asked for a clarification if he's confused.

Could you expand on this? Where did they say they were confused?

Also, defining newbie versus experienced player can be hard enough; defining overdefensive against regular defensive is even harder.

[Mgm]

ShadowLurker

: Began the game with the style of irrationally pursuing one pairing (H2 and TMH), and then when this was responded to, tried to call it 'overdefensiveness' (which I disagree with: the wagon itself was not well-reasoned, and that was exactly what TMH pointed out).

Three random votes is not a bandwagon that should be attempted to be debunked by citing poor reasoning. It is part of the random voting stage. I also like how you completely fail to ignore H2 da Tizzle's actions.

In other words, you disagree, just as pj said you would.

Bird1111

: Little content added to the game, and jumped on the Eon/Re2 wagon as it was gaining steam.

I'm also going to back up my other head on this one. We discussed this hop for quite a while and it was definitely not without reason.

PJ didn't comment on that. He said Bird didn't add enough to the game in way of posting.

[Mgm]

Confirm vote: ShadowLurker/Bird1111

[Mgm]

Omg. SRSLY people.

Deadline doesn't mean you should just vote the person you think is most scummiest and most likely to get lynched and leave.

You can still have discussion, just because there is a deadline for today doesn't mean you can't analyze what was said during the deadline about other players tommorow.

Stop it with the freaking DEADLINE IS COMING, DEADLINE IS COMING, ALL PILE ONTO ONE PERSON AND WAIT UNTIL TOMMOROW

Talk about misrepresentation. Voting now is to either get a claim or a lynch, if we don't do that now we will have wasted the day. I'm not waiting untill tomorrow, I'm waiting for a claim.

[Mgm]

Okaaaay this is very very bad.
Hrm well Glork heh its kinda interesting, everything you told is like "Lets hang those 2" But lets remember what Ibaesha told, im going to sound scummy but SHE WOULD DEFINATELY check spectrumvoid.
Glork so why dont you add them to suspect list?

Whether or not the cop would investigate someone isn't a good reason for us to meta-vote, especially since we don't have the results of said investigation. There are many reasons for a cop to investigate someone, and it doesn't always mean they check whoever is the scummiest. Therefore, making the assumption that the cop would indeed check spectrumvoid is merely a matter of opinion as to who you think is the scummiest. Since we, as my other head pointed out, were never sold on the SV/Lordy wagon, we have no reason to be going after them today. Even if Ibby would have checked SV, that STILL does not mean we should go after them, because we shouldn't just blindly follow the cop. Without knowing the results of their investigation, we have no way of knowing whether there suspicions we correct, so if we don't actually think they are suspicious, it's a really bad strategy to just go after whoever we think the dead cop *might've* investigated.

But we're not basing that off Ibby's supposed result. At least I'm not. It's the fact Ibby was killed that makes their possible investigative targets suspicious, because a guilty result on them would result in a certain death by the gallows, while now they could invoked the very fact there is no result to their defense. I think we've got reasonable grounds to suspect them, but I'll go back and read their posts to be absolutely sure. (I still have sprontalic firmly on my Scumdar from yesterday).

[Mgm]

2) lordSV is pro-town, scum killed person who was suspecting us the most to frame us.

The reason they might've investigated you is what makes you suspicious. 'Framing' on you wouldn't have had much effect until it was revealed the target was a cop. Leaving both you and Ibby alone would've left an enticing lynch target for a lot of people and someone who's really willing to push it.

I think depriving players of any information regarding a much-discussed player would be a much better choice for the mafia.

Scum couldn't have known leaving Ibby alive could result in an investigation result on you, so that can't be the reason they got killed, unless -of course- you did it to avoid being investigated.

[Mgm]

Vote:Eon/Re2fan

[Mgm]

Reason: sprontalic's post just above mine.

[Mgm]

I don't like TSQ's attacks on Eon. Period. When I first questioned Eon about the "Why did you assume an SK" thing, I wanted to see how he reacted. His reaction was a pretty typical "townie who assumed SK because that's generally more common than multiple killing groups or a N1-active vigilante" reply. If Eon/Re is scum (a distinct possibility still), I don't think that he's an SK.

Night one active vigs aren't that uncommon. Some mods force their vigs to kill.

Unvote

Glork makes enough of a point to make me question my vote was in the right place.

[Mgm]

Great! People always tell me to take it easy; that things like forum posts will be around when I get back from some travelling. Apparently they were wrong. Since this crash happened before I went away, I think I should apologize to my other head for not posting before the crash, but I guess that would've been a waste of time anyway since those posts got lost.

I don't even know who I was voting for...
Perhaps I can trace the notes I used earlier...

[Mgm]

MGM, you were voting for Eon/re2fan, if I remember correctly.

I forgot to check my notes. They're on another machine. If that is what they say I'll revote no earlier than monday so I can check unless my other hea confirms this is true.

[Mgm]

Then stop considering and maybe the site will stay up...

I'll try a reread on Sunday before I make a post.

[Mgm]

I'm trying to get my bearings back, but the thread is just too massive to concentrate and read properly. Can someone in the know give me a summary of what happened since the crash?