Mafia 79 - "The Amish Mafia" GAME OVER... WHO WON?

[The Fonz]

confizzle.

[The Fonz]

Huh.
I was pretty damn sure the Amish were protestant.

They are, they're old order mennonites. But seventh-day adventists are Protestants too, and they have a saturday sabbath.

[The Fonz]

I state that my vote is random because even though it's pretty much a given that the first few pages have been random, there have been times I have simply voted without stating that it's a random vote and been called scummy for voting without a reason.

Meh, going out of your way to make sure everyone knows your vote is random is SOMEWHAT scummy. As in, an ever so slightly better than random reason for an early vote.

There now follows a public announcement of all the actions which will cause me to attempt to policy-lynch you in this game.

1. Claiming when none of these conditions apply:
a) You're at L-1 or 2
b) You're the, or one of the, leading wagons with deadline looming
c) You're an investigative role with useful information
2. Self-voting outside of the random vote stage. No reason for a town player to do it, ever.
3. Being caught in, or admitting to, a lie. Lying as town is worthwhile only if you're willing to be lynched for it and still think it's a good idea (and usually, not then).

Any attempts to play the 'newbie card' will likely be looked upon with disfavour, but won't automatically result in a policy-lynch attempt. If i'm in a good mood.

I also find it unlikely the scum would be arrogant enough to team up to start a wagon this early on.

Vote: nswhorse

for the first use of wifom in the game.

[The Fonz]

Bandwagons are good for the soul.

Unvote Vote: Korts

Oh, and

FoS: VV and Korts

as scum buddies, VV seems to be playing a very n00b bussing on him, and it just reeks to me.

Surye, if I were a busser, would I really be the FIRST ONE to cast a vote on a fellow Scum, with no guarantee of any sort of bandwagon occurring?

WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM. Oh noes, scum couldn't POSSIBLY do that!

There being no guarantee of a bandwagon actually makes it easier to vote your buddy. It's been noted, empirically, that scum, and especially newbscum, tend to 'random' vote their buddies more often that would be the case with genuine 'random' voting.

Please do correct me here, but bussers normally vote for a Scum, hope he's lynched, so they can say "SEE! Korts was Scum! Surely Mafia wouldn't vote for fellow Scum, would they?" Yet, when I voted, there was absolutely no guarantee of any Bandwagon occurring. In fact, it was the first post of the game, so absolutely no bandwagon was guaranteed. I unvoted him in fact, due to a misunderstanding about the amount of votes needed for a lynch. To make matters worse, I specified that it was a random vote. Why would I take the vote off if I was a busser?

Yeah, 'distancing' is a more applicable term than bussing for the RVS, really.

But it's entirely in character for scum to vote their buddies when they're under little pressure, and not when they're really in trouble.

Why would you take your vote off if it were really random, and the player in question is in no real danger?

The reason why I responded was to continue the discussion. Discussion helps Townies catch Mafiosos, as it gives more of a chance for them to slip up.

So do bandwagons.

Point. I'm just not that big on random Round 1 bandwagons. I'm not upset that there is a bandwagon, I just don't wish to join it, as there doesn't appear to be particularly strong support for it. Like I said, should something come up, I will vote for the person being bandwagoned.

DING DING DING!

Scumtell!

"I'm not bandwagonning because other people aren't, but if other people are, I will!"

FOS Surye.

This random vote bandwagon is getting too serious. You seem to be supporting it.

And bandwagons never help anyone, besides Mafia. It is as bad as quicklynching.

WRONG. It is the single most useful source on information on day 1. Thanks for playing.

oh, and can someone explain what bussing means?

The act of attacking one's scumbuddy, in order to make it seem less likely that the pair of you are in cahoots.

I don't see how not wanting to incriminate yourself is necessarily a scum trait when townies don't want to get false incrimination on themselves either.

The point is, in theory, townies are actually pro-town, so can't 'incriminate themselves.' Though they can make mistakes that others take to be incriminating.

As a more general point, town players should be doing their best to stir up discussion, take positions, try to figure things out, since they WANT other players to get a read on them. Scum don't want town reading correctly, so can be tempted to avoid contributing to avoid giving themselves away.

Sheesh. It seems anything other than random voting or OMGUSing gets chucked in the WIFOM basket. The whole point of this game is that one side has information and the other doesn't. The side that doesn't, must of necessity engage in speculation and second-guessing of motives, or else sit around until a mafia confesses out of sheer boredom.

I stick to my opinion that the mafia wouldn't be dumb enough to bandwagon someone straight up, so it is in my opinion chasing the wind to go after someone on that basis. Call it WIFOM if you will, I call it eliminating unlikely possibilities to concentrate on more likely ones until there is more information to work with. This includes the possibilities of the scum being stupid or brazen. If they are, well it won't keep them alive in the long term.

unvote: Korts
vote: Erratus

For jumping on the lurker.

Except, of course, that plenty of people will make this kind of argument, and therefore it won't necessarily prevent them surviving in the long term.

You say scum wouldn't be that dumb. Because people are willing to make that argument, it isn't actually that dangerous, so it isn't that dumb. WIFOM.

Voting the same people isn't a scumtell. But it's not a towntell either.

i come with terms this is how ea plays, he will vote 10 times in a row onto the easiest lynch, anyways im here, need 2 read, lots of wagons and crazy veiws goin on.

That's fairly antitown , and I don't like accepting meta excuses for such actions.

EA: Any form of bandwagon that gets even slightly large is reckless because there are two kinds of people who can push that bandwagon over the safe edge at an L-6 point.

1. Scum.

2. Townies who come in after not being around for a few days, decide to not read any of the pages, see who has the most votes, and then goes and votes for them.

That's... well... laughable.

[The Fonz]

ZS, could you link to a game where WIFOM has allowed you to do either or those things? Failing that, a hypothetical example? I just find it really hard to see where you're coming from.

[The Fonz]

It works neither way- the principle is 'lynch the person with the best case against them.' You'll rarely PROVE anything, and to suggest as such is scummy.

[The Fonz]

Hence rarely, not never.

[The Fonz]

Claim time.

[The Fonz]

I just find it really hard to believe that anyone can think wifom is useful, bandwagonning harmful, and claiming never the right thing to do.

[The Fonz]

WIFOMs delivered by a smart townie are useful, out-of-control random bandwagoning is harmful, and all claims do is make people think you are desperate.

Sounds reasonable, yeah. How do you ever survive Day 1?

Whenever I do not say anything.

So you lurk?

[The Fonz]

WEll, yeah, because lurking is scummy and ought also to get you lynched.

My problem is that your opinions seem so blatantly detrimental to the town in the majority of people's eyes, that people can easily vote you without seeming scummy- because when they say 'I voted him for pushing antitown things' they'd be correct.

[The Fonz]

ZS's logic is so backwards, Hes trying to explain how everything he thinks is pro-town when its the exact opposite. He reeks of scum.

Nah. Remember that scum want to survive. Coming out with ridiculous statements like that basically constitutes sacrificing your own life to try to prove a point.

Some people just have very strange ideas on game theory, and this makes them a magnet for day one lynches. Which is fair enough, since someone who thinks everything scummy is town and everything townie is scum is going to spend the game barking up the wrong tree anyway.

[The Fonz]

And, of course, if you actually ARE a cop, it's in the town's interests not to lynch you.

[The Fonz]

Yes, we really must make sure we've got everyone on record before anyone ha...

never mind.

[The Fonz]

Vote: Alabaska J

Dissension ftw.

If BG86 HAD read all the posts condemning mellow man, and hammered him anyway, it's pretty clear she felt what she was doing was right, and didn't give a crap what people thought. Protown imho.

As an aside, I'm unbelievably pissed at Zombie. THE FUCKING POINT OF THE MASON ROLE IS THAT YOU CLAIM IT AND IT CONFIRMS YOU AS INNOCENT!

If there is a third mason in that masonry, and they are the last mason, I'd like that player to claim today. Since we've had two die without claiming, I don't want the possibility of a third mason hanging around as a scum fakeclaim.

[The Fonz]

Battle Mage, you're completely wrong.

THe mason ABSOLUTELY SHOULD CLAIM.

How will you feel about a mason claim from a player run up a few days claims mason?

The point of masons is that they are confirmable. Since we can't confirm them since we've had two masons die without claiming, it becomes a very handy safeclaim for scum, since there is nothing to counteract it.

Therefore, I want them to claim TODAY, when the mason claim is least advantageous for scum. If there is no claim today, we should lynch on sight anyone claiming to be part of that masonry later. Capiche?

[The Fonz]

Ed: unless there is a fourth member to back them up.

[The Fonz]

No, I said mellow man, i MEANT mellow man.

[The Fonz]

Mellow man wasn't, obviously. Zombie was.

Replacing pronouns:

If BG86 HAD read all the posts condemning mellow man [for apparently hammering Zombie], and hammered him [Zombie] anyway, it's pretty clear she felt what she was doing was right, and didn't give a crap what people thought. Protown imho.

[The Fonz]

*sigh*

Fonz, please dont do a CKD. I have a LOT of respect for you, but if you argue with me

when i'm right

, you wont come out of it feeling great.

With regard to the underlined comment, it is clear that you didnt read my last post fully, as i pointed out there that a mason claim now would be very hard to pull off as a fakeclaim, as it would rest not only on the consistency of that individuals interaction with 1 mason, but

2

!

Except that no-one really attacked Erratus, and a large number of players just lurked through the day.

Hence, it is incredibly short-sighted and foolish to ask for a mason claim today, IF we even have more of them. Especially with a dead Doctor, what good is a confirmed innocent to us? They'll just get killed tonight. Id much rather they breadcrumbed now, and if we get a claim later, when a confirmed innocent is actually useful to us, then we can check it out, and all is well.

The whole, DAMNED, point, is that they are not confirmed innocent because there's no-one else to confirm them! And a dead mason is not a dead cop.

The great thing about this situation is that any mason claim can be virtually confirmed simply by reading the game. A mason claim now is suicide. Any mason who claims now is clearly a terrible player, who has a deathwish. Anyone who pushes a mason-claim now, is either really missing the bigger picture, or is scum.

Oh and ooc, please dont use the word kapish against me. Not only is it one of my favourite words, but your spelling of it was criminal.

BM

BM, my spelling of it was CORRECT.

Capiche?

[The Fonz]

Missed out that middle section:

If you can reduce the number of possible mason partners to one by reading just ONE DAY of interactions, when half the town lurked, I'd be very surprised.

[The Fonz]

We don't. This is my point.

Mason groups are almost invariably 2 people in minis, and usually 2-3 in larges, with the occasional 4-man. Now, if we've got 4, we don't have a problem.

So, assuming we don't have four, we might have 2, and might have 3. Either is as likely. If we have only two, it's obviously possible for scum to claim to be the third, so long as that player wasn't on the Zombiewagon.

Meaning, if we wait, we won't be able to trust the mason claim anyway, so we might as well get it out if there is one.

[The Fonz]

It's very unlikely a scum could claim it now and get away with it. Too long, possibility of SK/multiple scumgroups and so on. Later, maybe.

[The Fonz]

@BM: The idea is not we set a claim order. The idea is that anyone who IS the last surviving mason come forward, or forever hold their peace (and, presumably, have to claim vanilla townie should we massclaim later). My idea of who is a plausible buddy might be wider or narrower than yours.

Secondly, yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever for a one-shot vig to use it on night one. People who kill doctors are fairly reliably scum.

unvote, vote: Mellowed Man

Please no-one hammer until every player has posted, and therefore has the chance to claim mason (or anything else for that matter).

[The Fonz]

If they choose not to claim, that's their prerogative BM.

[The Fonz]

Which is fine. If they don't claim now, they lose the opportunity to claim later.

[The Fonz]

Lynch all liars.

[The Fonz]

BM:

Your 'multiple lynches' thing is BS. The point of the multiple lynches scumtell is that scum do it, along the lines of 'well, if X isn't scum, Y who he is arguing with MUST be' which doesn't follow, and can be used to lynch consecutive townies.

Looking for scummy connections between two players, and suggesting that you'll go after one if the other is scum, is what town basically HAS TO DO. It's so far from being a scumtell it's not even funny.

Also, I don't get why 'anyone protown' would HAVE to unvote Mellowed. Competent scum continue to insist they are town right up to the posting of the nightscene, in case there's a mayor/governor or some mistake in the vote count.

[The Fonz]

BM:

Your 'multiple lynches' thing is BS. The point of the multiple lynches scumtell is that scum do it, along the lines of 'well, if X isn't scum, Y who he is arguing with MUST be' which doesn't follow, and can be used to lynch consecutive townies.

Looking for scummy connections between two players, and suggesting that you'll go after one if the other is scum, is what town basically HAS TO DO. It's so far from being a scumtell it's not even funny.

Well, yes and no. You are right with your definition, but what you fail to recognise is that tying two townies together is the same as tying a townie to a scumbag. Or at least, it has the same result. If said player is scum, then the result of losing a buddy is at the very least, 1 mislynch. Its a great investment by the scum, and happens ALOT. Just Alabaska made it VERY obvious.

But this is the point! Town players also have to think about who might be scum with whom! So it will come down to 'is Alabaska's suggestion of a link between BM and MM credible?' Which is the exact same thing that would happen if he came out with his BM-MM allegations afterward.

Also, I don't get why 'anyone protown' would HAVE to unvote Mellowed. Competent scum continue to insist they are town right up to the posting of the nightscene, in case there's a mayor/governor or some mistake in the vote count.

i would say ive never seen that role before, except i saw it for the first time ever, this morning. rofl
Either way, its not that common, and is a pretty poor reason behind the play.

Always assume you can win, until it's known that you've lost.

Regardless, acknowledging that competent scum do something is irrelevant, as MM is clearly not 'competent scum' (no offence!) to the extent that i think you mean.

Do you know something i dont about him?

Or are you just trying to be argumentative?

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

For the blatant rolefish.

[The Fonz]

Also, I don't get why 'anyone protown' would HAVE to unvote Mellowed. Competent scum continue to insist they are town right up to the posting of the nightscene, in case there's a mayor/governor or some mistake in the vote count.

i would say ive never seen that role before, except i saw it for the first time ever, this morning. rofl
Either way, its not that common, and is a pretty poor reason behind the play.

Always assume you can win, until it's known that you've lost.

Worst. Philosophy. Ever.
lol

Wouldn't you feel stupid, BM, if you'd fessed up to being scum, and then it was revealed that someone had forgotten to unvote, or something like that meant you didn't die?

Regardless, acknowledging that competent scum do something is irrelevant, as MM is clearly not 'competent scum' (no offence!) to the extent that i think you mean.

Do you know something i dont about him?

Or are you just trying to be argumentative?

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

For the blatant rolefish.

Rolefish? rofl
How do you figure that to be a rolefish?
I'm discussing his competency ffs. How does me asking whether you have a meta on him, pertain to his role, in any way, shape or form??

Loose-voter...

BM[/quote]

You're asking if I have any knowledge that isn't generally available. Since a) I've never played with him before and b) if I HAD, I'd have let my meta on him be in the open, then I can only conclude that you were fishing for some kind of investigative role.

[The Fonz]

BM: Again, IF I HAD A META ON HIM, I'D HAVE SAID SO, WOULDN'T I!

Also, how exactly would one have a meta pertaining to such a specific situation?

[The Fonz]

Assertion, Bm.

And the short answer is- i didn't. I never made the assertion that he is an experienced mafia player. I said, it's a bad idea to 'clear' someone because they claim in twilight, especially when it's a change of claim, because it is the correct and usual thing for scum to do. Sure, you might get the odd newbie who doesn't think it through... but I'm not necessarily going to assume that MM, if he were scum, would be incapable of doing the optimal scum thing.

[The Fonz]

that's a MAJOR reach.

what could BM possibly be suggesting relating to this game? that you have a role which can find out how competent someone is? that he thinks MM has secretly revealed master strategies to you through nightalk?

he was asking if you knew something about how good MM is, not about his role! blatant paranoia.

That I have a guilty investigation on him, of course, you idiot!

And again- isn't it obvious to anyone with half a brain that if i had a meta read on someone, I wouldn't keep it to myself!!!!?

[The Fonz]

that's a MAJOR reach.

what could BM possibly be suggesting relating to this game? that you have a role which can find out how competent someone is? that he thinks MM has secretly revealed master strategies to you through nightalk?

he was asking if you knew something about how good MM is, not about his role! blatant paranoia.

That I have a guilty investigation on him, of course, you idiot!

And again- isn't it obvious to anyone with half a brain that if i had a meta read on someone, I wouldn't keep it to myself!!!!?

Then i was curious as to why you had insinuated that MM was experienced, after you had commented that it was a tactic used frequently amongst experienced scum.

BM

I DID NOT INSINUATE THAT MM WAS EXPERIENCED!!!!1ONE!

[The Fonz]

A word of caution.

Possibly my worst game ever, we lynched a newbie who'd given up in pretty much precisely these circumstances.

Some people just don't have a thick enough skin to deal with the criticism inherent in mafia.

A lot of you were saying that Zombie 'MUST BE SCUM' because he was arguing in favour of wifom and against claiming. Now you're arguing that BG must be scum because she can't handle the pressure. I can't see why being unable to deal with criticism is a scumtell.

Ironically, no-one jumps on newbies harder than newbies.

[The Fonz]

BM, if you couldn't deal with criticism, you wouldn't have lasted five minutes, the amount you get.

[The Fonz]

low expectations ftw

[The Fonz]

It's not like you are contributing either. All you've done in the past week is say you want Evilgorillaz like 6 days ago, then say a few people are scummy (whom many people have, what a follower) and ask BM to post more detailed explanations of his votes

All of this sounds like content to me.

Surely we'd want him to die loudly so we can use his noise to track his buddies?

this post gives me terribly scummy vibes. Enough for a wagon at this stage.

BM

Really? Seriously?

[The Fonz]

Only one dead?

Mellowed man, explain yourself.

[The Fonz]

hmm...

i'm sorta suspicious of those who were constantly against BM yesterday...

on the other hand, smart scum wouldn't kill someone they'd often been "suspicious" of...

oh, this wine in front of me...

Well, BM spent most of yesterday hounding Alabaska. So take from that what you will.

D1, p3, #61

UNVOTE

VOTE: ValiantValant

I say he's posting too much; almost seems like he's trying to defend himself over every action.

And the problem with being very active in the thread is…?

More to the point (and this is a good catch, something I think I overlooked at the time) looks a lot like a 'too defensive' argument.

At the end of page 9 and a good deal of page 10, The Fonz is pretty much hell-bent on making the Masons claim. This early in the game and with this many people, I feel that a confirmed innocent is too dangerous to town because he or she then becomes an easy scum target unless the person is a vanilla.

HoS: The Fonz

Hey, actually read my arguments, why don't you? Not masons. Mason. Singular. And I wanted a mason claim yesterday, since a mason claim late in game with no-one to confirm it is hugely untrustworthy. Better to have a confirmed townie early, than never.

Most of the rest of the day after this is confusing to me. I expected claims, which never happen except for D2, p13, #324 for the vigilante who nearly got lynched and was saved by the lack of an unvote—or so he says he's the vigilante. There was only one death last night, and unless he is a one-shot, that means he lied.

Lynch all liars, so…

Vote: Mellowed Man

Well, he's already lied once, since he claimed one-shot then backtracked. There may be other explanations- I'm waiting to see what he claims to have done.

[The Fonz]

Mod: can you fix the quote tags above?

[The Fonz]

Yes, but several masons can confirm one another. One mason cannot be confirmed (well, unless there's some huge breadcrumb i missed).

[The Fonz]

I also hate it when BM plays mafia.

/jk

[The Fonz]

Don't be silly. You don't roleblock claimed vigs- largely because you need them to confirm themselves. (You don't doc protect them either, unless you're pretty damn sure they're town).

[The Fonz]

The more you know, i assume.

[The Fonz]

There now follows a public announcement of all the actions which will cause me to attempt to policy-lynch you in this game.

1. Claiming when none of these conditions apply:
a) You're at L-1 or 2
b) You're the, or one of the, leading wagons with deadline looming
c) You're an investigative role with useful information
2. Self-voting outside of the random vote stage. No reason for a town player to do it, ever.
3. Being caught in, or admitting to, a lie. Lying as town is worthwhile only if you're willing to be lynched for it and still think it's a good idea (and usually, not then).

Vote: Mellowed Man

[The Fonz]

Hang on... there's been a modding mistake somewhere.

Mod: The front page lists two players as dying night two, but your post announcing the start of day three lists only one death. What figures?

[The Fonz]

*$#%^#% =((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((


It should be so BLEEPING OBVIOUS.

Now I'm done with my rant, and will shift my mood to something else.

Now, look.

How exactly is it supposed to be bleeping obvious that you're the vig?

You first claimed townie. Then one shot. Then you claimed full vig. LAL isn't just because lying is harmful, though it is- it is also because people who lie far more often than not ARE scum.

You claimed you were willing to lynch Babygirl or Alabaska. You yourself voted alabaska. Then you turn around and use BM's attacking Alabaska as a reason to vig him? After not really suspecting him at all?

Then there's only one kill last night. Either we have had a succesful roleblock or something, or you're lying. But, of course, if the case is that the roleblocker successfully blocked scum, we'll never know, because, oh yeah, you killed him.

I've seen vigs with track records as bad as yours before, but it takes some believing.

[The Fonz]

MM, I believed you clear up until your outburst.

The last time I saw someone get all pissed off and quit the game, demanding a replacement in the process--- they were scum who had been backed into a corner.

Small sample size. I've seen people get pissed off and quit the game plenty with either alignment.

[The Fonz]

Bah go town.