Mature Mafia: Game Over

[Axelrod]

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.

Oh good. I'd very much like to hear it. But Mathcam can speak first.

[Coron]

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?

First off let's get this straight, I'm protown. As much as I'm all for letting people know who you think is town and scum, I think it is poor play(after all once you have made a decision on something, even if for poor, or no reason, you have a tendency to think that what you decided was right) and also a minor scum tell to list off a bunch of people as simply "protown" on day 1 with hardly any info at all.

minor FOS: Glork

[rajrhcpfreak]

yah, not to mention the only person i feel that confident with is phoebus. and is it me or has glork been sucking cams ass since he called glork out?

[Glork]

yah, not to mention the only person i feel that confident with is phoebus. and is it me or has glork been sucking cams ass since he called glork out?

Actually, I've been "sucking cams ass," as you so eloquently put it, since that complete bullshit wagon first formed on him.



If you want a lesson on "sucking ass," let's take a look at

YOUR

posts, RAJ, as you have shown yourself to be the king of shameless, scummy bandwagoning so far.

Random Vote, nothing to see here.
"Gut/Cap Logic on Vote/Bandwagon Time"... translation: Shamelessly wagoning, but claiming to have some "gut" behind it to "justify" it somewhat.
I think this post has been edited, because it originally had RAJ agreeing with my hunch-based Axelvote. Raj claims to see/agree with it, but not enough to jump a second time.
Reiterating his gut-vote on DGB... He asserts that his vote was due to her interactions with others. The extent of DGB's "interactions" at this point were a random-vote on Logic and a tongue-in-cheek comment towards him. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that you could've possibly formed a remotely solid "gut" opinion based on that. Somebody seems triggerhappy.
Throwaway post
This post was a response to a request to explain his Axelhunch. In his three-post PBPA, he openly criticizes Axel's

joke/random vote on Coron

. Axel's second post was still one of the FIRST FIFTEEN POSTS OF THE GAME, and the third post was an elaboration on the second. How could RAJ possibly expect to see meaningful analysis of "current voting trends"? The answer, plain and simple: He couldn't.
In his seventh post, Raj continues his attack on Axel, but states he won't vote for Axel. Axel's response was absolutely justified, and RAJ tries to pass it off as "the worst OMGUS in the world".
After some more heat, Raj backs down. He does throw out the comment that those defending Axel are "his scumbuddies."
Kiss and make up with Axel.
The next post is a doozie. Here, we see RAJ actually FoS Adel all on his own. Then he comments on how he wants to jump the Camwagon but won't so as to not "rush a lynch." Awww, how considerate.
Raj implies suspicion of Macros, and throws out a wishy-washy noncomment about how he "wants" to believe Pooks/EK are town but knows he shouldn't trust them. For somebody who eariler ACCUSED AXEL OF MAKING COMMENTS THAT DON'T ADD VALUE TO THE THREAD, this surprises me.
Macros unvotes, and Raj sees only 1 on th Camwagon
Less than 29 hours after saying he'll "hold off" putting Cam at Lynch-1, Raj puts Cam at Lynch-1.
After Pooky went after Glork/Cam, and DGB posited Glork/Cam/Macros, RAJ "can uy" the scumteam
RAJ mentions WIFOM to debunk EK's defense of me. Not really much to see here.
More WIFOM discussion, strengthened by RAJ claiming he'd reveal exactly what I did. I should also point out that RAJ points out that everyone in the game is a "good player." This comes up in the next post.
Raj asserts his confidence in his scumgroup. He points out that all three people he picked out ended up voting for him, and accuses us all of mere OMGUS.

FIRST

off, I voted for you long before you accused me of being scumm, RAJ... back when you were trying to "suck my ass" (if I may use such a term). I switched off in the interim, but moved back after your

atrocious

"I buy the cam/glork/macros group" post.

SECONDLY

while asserting that we're "good players," RAJ twice implies that we're making extremely obvious/rookie mistakes. First, our agreement with one another apparently makes us a scumgroup. Secondly, we ALL commit the SAME "scumtell" of "OMGUSing" Raj.
I call bullshit. Huge, enormous amounts of bullshit.
Raj goes after Cam for not claiming, which I can't really say is especially out of the ordinary. He also defends against EK, claiming that his play here really isn't all that different than usual. (Incidentally, I think that this type of defense is a scumtell in and of itself, but that's neither here nor there.)
Another throwaway
Again, Raj asserts that both (assuming a single scumgroup of three, which I am tentatively assuming) of Cam's scumbuddies are going out of their way to defend him D1.
Pseudo-defense of DGB (not getting "the same scummy vibes" he did on page one).
Throwaway re: editing of Jathan's posts.
"oh i agree" Note also that Raj keeps leeching my interrogation of Cam's behavior even as he claims that I'm Cam's scumbuddy. He'll respond with "distancing, naturally," but I find that hard to swallow.
Misread/Misrepresentation of Cam... obviously I'm biased at this point, so you know which one I think it is.
And, most recently, he agrees with coron that my posting of a list is a point against me.



So there you have it:
-Overblown weak (if not nonexistent altogether) arguments.
-Shamless sheeping, leeching, and outright stealing from other people
-Contradictory and hypocritical statements
-Throwaway comments

That's really all I've seen from Raj.



Somebody please explain to me why he's still alive.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Oh, and to respond to Coron... this post in Lights Out 2 was made on Day One. I also happened to be right about all seven (nonglork) people on that list. I see nothing wrong with flatly stating whom you believe to be protown.

Sometimes

, if you ask

reeeeaaaalllyyyy

nicely, I might even find it in my heart to explain why I feel that certain people are so protown.

[Talitha]

Gawsh, I'm still back on page 11, but I feel like I need to get mith in here to give some of you guys a lecture on

Lynch or lynch not. There is no claim

.

[Talitha]

A split role/motive game is one where the role functions are assigned independently of the alignment. Games such as Dantes in Fresno are not split role / motive even though the role and alignment are listed separately on the role PM. Even though it's possible here that roles weren't assigned completely independently of alignments, this game is a perfect candidate for such a setup and I think it's a good assumption that it's split role/motive.

Having said that, I can't see what harm there is in claiming our assigned moderating duties, if we feel like it. Obviously I don't know other peoples' roles and there may be roles that are best left hidden. But mine will be obvious as soon as it's used anyway, and if I die I'd like people to know that we no longer have a (insert role here), so that someone else can be delegated the job if necessary. I also believe claiming it would give absolutely no information about whether I'm town or scum, but might help the game logistically.

Now to the important stuff.
I think Glork's list of pro-town and possible scum is a pretty good assessment, because it pretty much jives with my gut feelings on people (myself excluded). After reading the current discussion on Raj and DGB I'm persuaded to go with the Raj wagon.

vote: Raj

[DrippingGoofball]

Glork?

ReEeEEeEeeAaaasAaaaAaCCCCCCCChhhhhhhhhh!!!

Your case against raj is a very long and tedious one, but it's still rubbish. When a player takes every single post another player has made and spins them to look like scum, unless that player is mathcam, that gives me bad vibes about the player making the "case."

FOS: Glork

- for making overwhelming rubbish cases.

FOS: Talitha

- for taking Glork's word uncritically.

[Glork]

Actually, DGB, if you'd bother to read my PBPA, a number of the posts I didn't have a problem with:

Random Vote, nothing to see here.

...

After some more heat, Raj backs down. He does throw out the comment that those defending Axel are "his scumbuddies."
Kiss and make up with Axel.
The next post is a doozie. Here, we see RAJ actually FoS Adel all on his own.

...

Macros unvotes, and Raj sees only 1 on th Camwagon

...

RAJ mentions WIFOM to debunk EK's defense of me. Not really much to see here.
More WIFOM discussion, strengthened by RAJ claiming he'd reveal exactly what I did.

...

Misread/Misrepresentation of Cam... obviously I'm biased at this point, so you know which one I think it is.

None of these posts were 'spun' to make it look like he was scum.


Do not misrepresent me again.

[DrippingGoofball]

"Random Vote, nothing to see here." OBLIGATORY NEUTRAL
"After some more heat, Raj backs down. He does throw out the comment that those defending Axel are "his scumbuddies." Kiss and make up with Axel. The next post is a doozie. Here, we see RAJ actually FoS Adel all on his own. NEUTRAL
"Macros unvotes, and Raj sees only 1 on th Camwagon" NEUTRAL
"RAJ mentions WIFOM to debunk EK's defense of me. Not really much to see here.
More WIFOM discussion, strengthened by RAJ claiming he'd reveal exactly what I did." NEUTRAL
"Misread/Misrepresentation of Cam... obviously I'm biased at this point, so you know which one I think it is." SPIN

I insist that your "assessment" is spin. A few sparse neutral comments don't tip the scale.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

I am voting for Cam based on:

On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. In my role PM, there is a very clearly delineated difference between my alignment and my role.

There's no doubt that I will claim pro-town as my alignment

, and given that my role is presumably independent of my alignment, I'm not sure what there is to gain from that either. Not only is it therefore bad play to claim (unnecessarily giving away information), it's also scummy to push for a claim. It's also possible that the scum role/alignment structure is set up differently, and thus that scum didn't know how worthless it would be to push for a claim. Raj is the scummiest of those three, so he gets my vote.

I added Bolding myself for emphasis.

You should be voting him too

Unless you got your alignment as "protown"

[Glork]

Raj hasn't shown the insight I expect from a protown player. I'm not going to sugar-coat a case to make it look as though I think he's done something protown. Because he really hasn't. All of his sheeping and leeching do not look as though he is sincerely trying to find scum. They look as though he's just looking for somebody to lynch.

And the last one isn't spin. If I'd just flatly stated that he was misrepresenting Cam, that'd be spin. I pointed out what he did and gave my opinion of the matter, noting that I myself am severely biased by that point.

[Glork]

EBWOP: That's interesting, Pooky, and not something I had really thought about. I'd like Cam to cite his alignment exactly.

[elvis_knits]

I am voting for Cam based on:

On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. In my role PM, there is a very clearly delineated difference between my alignment and my role.

There's no doubt that I will claim pro-town as my alignment

, and given that my role is presumably independent of my alignment, I'm not sure what there is to gain from that either. Not only is it therefore bad play to claim (unnecessarily giving away information), it's also scummy to push for a claim. It's also possible that the scum role/alignment structure is set up differently, and thus that scum didn't know how worthless it would be to push for a claim. Raj is the scummiest of those three, so he gets my vote.

I added Bolding myself for emphasis.

You should be voting him too

Unless you got your alignment as "protown"

Good point.

Unless he was just making general statement.

Glork is right. Cam needs to claim his allignment exactly. NOW.

[Glork]

PS, add Pooky to my obvprotown list.

[elvis_knits]

If mathcam does not claim in the correct way (that lets us know he is not scum), please nobody correct him. Just vote him.

That is all.

[mathcam]

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?

I'm not ignoring them. In fact, their existence only strengthens my argument. I've already claimed that I have a modpower, so my claim would look like

"I have the power to do X",

where X is some modpower, or

"I have the power to do X and the power to do Y"

where X is some modpower and Y is cop/doc/etc. If I were scum and didn't want to embroil myself in the difficulties of choosing a plausible Y, I would likely just choose the first option. (I'm assuming that there's no super-easy game-breaking strategy to the modpowers like that the town have them and the mafia don't, or any other such system. I'd guess everyone has one, but I don't know).

Sorry about the quote confusion, elvis.

As to this most recent attack, I'd claim that it's not very "mature", and only debatably ethical, to ask for a specific word in my role PM that is in place of "pro-town." That choice of words was deliberate. In fact, I feel rather dirty even just knowing that I know Pooky is pro-town right now, and likely Glork and elvis as well.

Cam

[DrippingGoofball]

What is the last letter of the word? That should suffice.

[elvis_knits]

I think it is perfectly mature and ethical to ask you to verify one word from your pm. The choice of term here is important. It is not asking you to quote your pm. It is asking you for one word. I see nothing potentially illegal in that.

Or as DGB has said, claim the last letter of the word.

P sure cam is scum now.

[mathcam]

The point of not quoting a PM is so that there is no PM-based test of alignment. Do you not think that by quoting this word, we will have successfully broken a substantial part of this game, since with good odds, we would have 4 out of 14 confirmed townies?

The number of words is irrelevant. That EmpTyger did not take the precaution of posting any information about pro-town PMs in the opening post means that it is upon us to be doubly careful about this kind of stuff.

Cam

[mathcam]

Food for thought:

There's a LOT of evidence that role-quoting breaks games, even in Normal setups and those Opens where the role PMs are not posted. Wording, syntax, even spelling errors can confirm people in ways scum could never predict, and that's not what Mafia is supposed to be about. It's not a completely arbitrary rule, but one made through necessity from literally years of experience. I actually think it simplifies the game, because you're not being distracted by Outguessing the Mod.

Back to my claim.

DGB (and/or others): Are you saying there are different modpowers for which my statement of

"My role is SUCHANDSUCHMODPOWER"

which would cause you to believe me scum or town, respectively? If not, why continue to push for a claim?

Cam

[elvis_knits]

Mathcam, I think this is BS.

If I were a cop, I wouldn't object to verifying the term "cop." People who are cops don't need to claim "investigatory role" so that they are not quoting their PM.

[DrippingGoofball]

Come on, mathcam.

The last letter of your ALIGNMENT.

[mathcam]

If I were a cop, I wouldn't object to verifying the term "cop." People who are cops don't need to claim "investigatory role" so that they are not quoting their PM.

This is missing the point entirely. You would have no way of verifying the authenticity of my claim based on whether or not I called it "cop" or "investigatory role." In the current situation, however, you are attempting to verify my alignment by whether my role-specific information (specific lettering/wording in my role PM) matches your role-specific information, instead of by my in-game actions. This is not even debatably within the scope of the no mod-quoting PM, given that we have no specific instructions on how to deal with these scenarios.

DGB: Come, on. Answer my question.

Cam

[elvis_knits]

But, cam, how are we supposed to evaluate if you wrote "pro-town allignment" before because you were purposefully being general, or because you don't know what the correct term is?