Mature Mafia: Game Over

[Phoebus]

logicticus - I brought that up because I foresee a terrible situation where people would just go on and on without reaching a consensus.
We're already going around in circles over Cam's claim without him doing it (claiming) or anyone really bothering to push any other wagons.

I'm afraid I don't much care for that.

If that makes you wonder about me... So be it.

[elvis_knits]

Hmmm... Macros - what did your deleted post say?

I suggest we don't reread anything in this game as it can be easily tainted.

I would feel okay about going forward off memory. I don't like rereading anyway (and prefer not to do it).

(Or I guess we can copy the whole game every day and look for changes. But honestly, I am never going to do that. If anyone else wants to... go for it).

[Glork]

I suggest we don't reread anything in this game as it can be easily tainted.

I would feel okay about going forward off memory. I don't like rereading anyway (and prefer not to do it).

Yeah, that's going to be hard for me. I tend to read back an awful lot. I just plan on playing as though nobody is going to cheat; if somebody does, I will consider the game a draw, or cancelled.

Phoebus seems quite protown to me.

I understand where Adel is coming from regarding DGB's misrepresntation of votecounts, but I don't see that as being out-of-the-ordinary for DGB. I am also still trying to evaluate DGB's behavior, although I will say that she's reverted to her typical stubborn self. She seems content to build and stick with factions, which is not unlike her behavior was in Famous Cats. Naturally, the difference here is that in Famous Cats, she and Pooky were dead in the water after I'd gotten a guilty result on Pooks and had debunked her fake claim. I don't find it all that likely that she'd draw battle lines so distinctly this early as scum, which is a point in her favor.

On a pseudo-related note, I find Cam's stance on not-claiming to be ridiculous. Whether alignment and role/ability are distinguished in different quote tags, different lines (such as here), or not at all has

NEVER

been a deterring factor in claiming one's role in my ~4 years of playing mafia. At this point, I do feel that Cam's defense is an excuse not to claim, as opposed to a reason. Naturally, I suppose that it comes down to the nature of "abilities" that we're talking about here. Supposing Coron were to bite the dust: Would we never have an official vote count again? Would we be unable to lynch? Hardly. I'd give 95% certainty that if a player with a "mod responsibility" dies, one of three things happens:
A) The responsibility is transitioned to a living player;
B) The deceased player continues to fulfill their responsibility;
C) We carry on without the "official" responsibility

Cam, do you honestly believe that this game is set up so that if players with mod responsibilities die, the game would become crippled or nonfunctional?
Do you expect that having a mod responsibility will make a player less likely to be lynched? More likely to be nightkilled (if town)?

[Macros]

it wasnt much, jsut an update on my opinoins of the game, i havent really been followingt hat closely I'll admit, and I'll endevour to be more active, starting tonight.
That Cam seems to be hell bent on only giving his alignment and not role is odd, If you're reluctant to claim its generally scum or a power pro town, if the latter, scum arent stupid and will assume that anyway so........
i'll read his arguements for it again and reconsider my vote accordingly, but it seems like its time to shit or get off the pot

[Axelrod]

I do not see why anyone would delete a post of Macros'. Especially one that "wasn't much."

And if I were Macros and knew that a post of mine had been deleted, I rather think I might think it was important, and try to, you know, replicate said post. As opposed to saying "oh well."

I am also not a fan of Glork's #277 above. Glork, please look back closely over what you just wrote, go re-read your role PM, and tell me if you made a mistake of any kind.

[Macros]

it was just me saying i would endevour to get a few more meaningful posts in.
thats the baffling part

[Adel]

this is post 281, just sayin'.

I understand where Adel is coming from regarding DGB's misrepresntation of votecounts, but I don't see that as being out-of-the-ordinary for DGB.

I refuse to acknowledge "typical for DGB" as an excuse for anti-town behavior. I've been in a bunch of games with DGB in the last few months and while she has abused her meta to the point where people consider her anti-town actions to be a null-tell, I note her day 1 activity level and enthusiasm for a quick claim and I'm feeling more and more confident that she is scum.

[elvis_knits]

Are you sure DGB misrepresented the VC? I think cam was at L-1 at one point. DGB did continue to tell cam to claim because he was at L-1, but that's not as horrible if cam was at L-1 at one point.

[Adel]

well, according to axlerod's analysis at 253 the closest he came was lynch -2.

[Adel]

and that was only for a short time.

[Axelrod]

No, Mathcam had 6 votes as of post #154. That's L-1.

Of course, Pooky switched his vote 2 posts later so, yes, it wasn't for long, but long enough for Glork to comment about it at #155.

[Macros]

right, I'm leaving my vote on dbg because I dont like her posting, but cam needs to claim.
end of.

[mathcam]

For Pete's sake. Will someone

please

explain to me why?

BECAUSE... you have been specially selected.

That's how day 1 goes. We find someone reasonably scummy (you) and that someone claims. We hear the claim, and we decided whether we should hammer or not.

Wow. I find it hard to explain how disugsting I find this attitude. Not even

considering

that different rules might call for a strategy other than "play every day 1 exactly the same way" makes me wonder how you can even enjoy the game of mafia.

And I wasn't asking why I was chosen -- if I'm the lynch for the day, I'm the lynch for the day. The question I'm asking is how you can counter my arguments that revealing roles is beneficial to the mafia and detrimental to the town.

I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I

can

see a detriment.

Unbelievable. Of course, someone is going to claim something by the time this day is over. You think we can go a whole day 1 without anyone claiming?

We're playing mafia, not "stallfia" - claim please.

I'm beside myself with frustration here.

Why

should we make someone claim before the day is over? The answer to your question is yes, presuming that enough of the town comes to their senses and realizes that "bandwagon until lynch -1, force a claim, and then decide whether or not to hammer" is a strategy that quite ismply will not work in this game.

Stalling is saying that you're waiting for something to happen before you claim. I am therefore quite clearly not stalling.

Cam, do you honestly believe that this game is set up so that if players with mod responsibilities die, the game would become crippled or nonfunctional?
Do you expect that having a mod responsibility will make a player less likely to be lynched? More likely to be nightkilled (if town)?

Honestly, and apologies to Emp if I'm wrong, I doubt that much thought was put into the game. I suspect that any time Emp came up with a situation of the form "What should I have happen if X happens?", he self-responded with a "Well, this is mature mafia. I'll leave it up to them to figure it out on their own."

You forgot to mention that if Mathcam was really going to vote me for Disavowment of Responsbility, he should've done it when I first disavowed(aka when i promised to follow tally) and not way afterwards after I vote him.

I guess it's true that I notice/abhor crap play when it's targetted against me more than when it's targetted at a random player to be named later. This is perhaps not theoretically sound (I should care about all crap play equally much), but in practice I think this is rarely the case.

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

[Glork]

...idk, Cam still seems pretty legit to me, guys.

[elvis_knits]

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

[Glork]

EBWOP:

I am also not a fan of Glork's #277 above. Glork, please look back closely over what you just wrote, go re-read your role PM, and tell me if you made a mistake of any kind.

p sure I meant everything I said. I really don't know what you're getting at as far as me "making a mistake" goes.

I refuse to acknowledge "typical for DGB" as an excuse for anti-town behavior.

I will never acknowledge ti as an excuse either, but I am willing to take meta into account when reading people. I do not, for example, play PJ the same way I play DGB.

The crucial detail in reading something like DGB's "misrepresentation" of the vote count is in examining context of the alleged offense. It is true that Cam was at Lynch-1 for a short time. It is true that I pointed this out, and --

even though I have consistently maintained that Cam is likely protown, I asked for a claim from him

. It is true that DGB can, at times, get wrapped up so tightly in her own arguments that she fails to realize how the game has changed around her. Given those three factors, I do not find her behavior out of the ordinary. To insinuate that I simply gave her a free pass for "being DGB" is ridiculous. But given the context of the game, the comments you questioned do not particularly bother me.

[elvis_knits]

I remember someone saying

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

But it was not me. I think it may have been DGB, but I don't remember, and I can't find anyone having said it. Has it been deleted?

Cam, did you make a mistake in your posting, or did you really think I said that?

[Glork]

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

Misattributed quote. Axel said it in Post 258.

[elvis_knits]

Ok, good. I thought I was being screwed with.

[Glork]

Ok, good. I thought I was being screwed with.

Yeah, I nearly flipped a shit until I looked back to see where it had been written.

[Axelrod]

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

I wrote that. I am assuming it was just some kind of a cut & paste error.

Mathcam: you are

still

missing/ignoring a rather fundamental point here. There is a deliniation between "Alignment" and "Role" in this game. You keep going on about how claiming "Role" won't tell anyone anything and might be harmful because the Mafia then might learn some valuable "Mod. Power" and try to eliminate that from the game - but you are completely ignoring what are traditionally the "Roles" of Mafia. You know, the ones that don't have anything to do with "Mod. Powers/Duties" but are plain old "Cop" "Doc" "Vanilla", etc.

Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?

[Glork]

Protown:
EK, Cam, Adel, Phoebus, Glork, probably Axel

Scum:
Raj

So our other two scums are among:
DGB, Macros, Pooky, Coron, Logic, Tally



Good deal. I think we've had a very productive first day. Can we proceed with lynching RAJ now?

[Glork]

Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?

I'm pretty sure I have a very relevant response to this, but I'll wait for Cam to answer first.

[rajrhcpfreak]

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

so you dont want me to claim. you want the town to be in the dark about my role? this doesnt sound very pro town.

dont we want the town to have all the info that we can get out of a scummy player?

[Glork]

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

so you dont want me to claim. you want the town to be in the dark about my role? this doesnt sound very pro town.

dont we want the town to have all the info that we can get out of a scummy player?

If you bothered to read Cam's stance on claims in this game, this would make perfect sense.