Mature Mafia: Game Over

[Talitha]

I guess I'm thinking about a one week deadline. Any objections?

[Talitha]

Note that nonny has offered to replace into the game, if there is anyone else who wants out.

[DrippingGoofball]

Is one week enough time to lynch Glork?

[Macros]

I'll pm nonny to replace me

[Werebear]

Awww. Until we meet again, and I lynch you and have you hung like the scummy dog that you are, Macros. *grin* (for the humour-impaired, that was a joke)

By the way, for the record, my stance is using your role PM to gain town status is just not acceptable. What's done can't be undone, and as we've been told before, we're big people now.

I do get the feeling that one of either DG or Glork is scum, and DG claimed no mod powers. By the way, who was the first one to claim "I have no powers"? Not including the N1 death, of course...

[elvis_knits]

Coron-is-a-punk Vote Count:

DGB - 3 (Coron, Adel, Macros)
Adel - 2 (EK, Logic)
Coron - 1 (Axel)
Glork - 1 (DGB)
Logic - 1 (Tally)

Not voting: Glork, Pheobus/WB

With 10 alive, 6 to lynch.

(Note: Pheobus/Werebear was voting Cam, who is dead, so didn't count that... Also, Macros voted Axel, then voted DGB without unvoting. I counted the vote for DGB, but it would really be good if everyone were to unvote in the future before voting again. Preferably tell who you are unvoting too.).

[Macros]

unvote, vote CGD

just for clarity

[Axelrod]

I guess I'm thinking about a one week deadline. Any objections?

I might approve, but only if you said you were ready to lynch someone and actually argued for why. You've really got no business setting a deadline if you aren't doing anything to push the game forward yourself. You are still voting Logiticus based on an "itch" right? So is he the one you really want lynched?

[DrippingGoofball]

unvote, vote CGD

just for clarity

CGD, who that???

I'm leaving town for several days on June 25 (I'll be on a plane on that day) so V/LA until Jul 8 or 9 (I forget).

I'd rather not be replaced.

If you want to lynch me, hurry up, my time is running out.

[Macros]

nonnys in for me, laters

[Werebear]

You know, I kind of wish I'd read the whole thing before I joined. *snicker*

I can get behind DGB. That would put him one vote away from a lynch. If no better arguments come up, I will vote tomorrow. I'm also interested in what nonnys has to say.

[Werebear]

By the way, part of my reasoning for the non-roles?

There's a 50-50 chance roles have nothing to do with alignment. I understand that. But I have a feeling the scum were given the role of "notify people they're dead, when you kill them". The people that claimed roles, if they were scum, they were taking the chance of duplicating roles.

Also, the ratio of "no roles:roles" looks suspiciously like the ratio of "scum:town" to me.

[nonny]

Alright so I got my role. I've been following along. But I want to re-read now that i'm more invested in the game. Marcos said tally could give me mod privs?

[Talitha]

I guess I'm thinking about a one week deadline. Any objections?

I might approve, but only if you said you were ready to lynch someone and actually argued for why. You've really got no business setting a deadline if you aren't doing anything to push the game forward yourself. You are still voting Logiticus based on an "itch" right? So is he the one you really want lynched?

I think of my mod duty as independent-ish* from me as a player. Therefore if the players are slacking, I should set a deadline to make everyone get moving, myself included.

I don't currently know who I really want lynched, but a stalled game will not help that.

*I said 'ish' because of course I am not an unbiased party in this game and there is a desire to never use my mod power in a way that would disadvantage my side.

Oh and hey nonny!!!

I think you guys (Werebear & nonny) need to PM mith and tell him you have replaced into this game... I am pretty sure he's the one who set us all up with mod powers in this thread. I can't do it.

[Adel]

a formula for deadlines would make the process of determining a deadline both transparent as well a free from the possible perception of bias.
after trying (3*number of living players) in a couple of games, I currently think that (2*number of living players) is the best length of a game day to keep a game on track and reduce the number of required replacements. stalled games result in replacements, unpunished lurking, and scum wins.

[DrippingGoofball]

I can get behind DGB. That would put him one vote away from a lynch. If no better arguments come up, I will vote tomorrow. I'm also interested in what nonnys has to say.

Hurry up I'm going on vacation in four days. And I'm still a "she." There's been no change. The operation was a dismal failure.

[nonny]

unvote

Until I get a chance to reevaluate my suspects.

Also wb's joke on reading before joining confuses me, because it obviously based on the fact that I know the game, but is posted before I stated that. I guess if they looked in the replacement thread they would know but it just seems odd....../random

Going to do my re-read today at work and then a post after.

[nonny]

Still reading and evaluating. But had some things to mention:

First could someone edit pooky's death scene? All the "usefuls" are a bit annoying....not that big a deal though

Also, the ratio of "no roles:roles" looks suspiciously like the ratio of "scum:town" to me.

I kind of don't see that being plausible. I mean yeah the ratio may be there but so far it doesn't look like the case. Since raj the lynch day one had no mod role, but the two night deaths both had claimed mod roles. So while it may be a valid ratio, I don't see it being a valid case. Plus I doubt the mod would set it up in such and obvious fashion....

More to come, back to reading for me.

[Werebear]

The story of my replacement:

Phoebus asked me via AIM if I wanted to substitute into a game. He said he'd send the role to me if I said yes. So, I said yes, received my role, and started reading. I read through 8 pages, and was kind of confused as to why Phoebus appeared to be playing, until I realized what a mess this game was.

He has since mocked me via AIM.

Apologies for calling you "he", TDG, I really hate it when I mess up like that, especially when your gender's in profile. Won't happen again.

Re: "no role" - either I'm right and no role means someone doesn't WANT to claim their role, or I'm wrong, and we're no worse off than we were before.

One question. How do we know if this game ends? Will our ever-absent mod step in at that point, or are we big enough boys and girls that we'll know it's ended? I'm not too pleased with the fact that scum could easily write a death scene that says "ScummyScumScum was a vanilla townie", and none of us would be the wiser.

[Axelrod]

I said I wasn't going to do this, but, since nothing else is happening, and I am bored, and don't feel like editing, I'm going to go ahead and post this thing I wrote up on Glork a while ago that's just been sitting on my computer doing nothing. As I mentioned, there are no huge smoking guns here, just a bunch of stuff I don't like very much.

So, this is my (totally unbiased, of course) assessment of Glork's play in the game so far:

Starts rather innocuously. A random vote or two. A joke here and there.

His first "position" is that players should all agree not to edit each other's posts - so if it happens we'll know it was done by scum.

That's not a "scummy" suggestion. It's just more like a pointless one - if you assume people are going to be trying to play the game fairly to begin with.

He pushes that position a bit harder in #62. Fine, I suppose. Still think it's pointless.

The first truly interesting post comes at #66 where Glork speculates about the Mafia method of killing in a hypothetical game without a Mod. Scum would just PM their target and tell them "your dead - post your role info in the thread." He further speculates that the scum might even do this from an alternate account, presumably to prevent the victim from identifying his killer in his death post (which I think we all can agree would be rather unsporting, yes?)

What's interesting here are 2 things - first, how unremarkable a speculation it really is. I mean, in a Modless game how

else

would the scum kill their targets? They'd pretty much have to PM the target directly, wouldn't they? And of course, in that situation, all sides would have to rely on the "Maturity" of the other to not ruin the game by revealing information that they would not normally have.

The second interesting part is his "Disclaimer" at the top. What's that all about? Why did you feel the need to put a big "Disclaimer" saying that the following speculation has nothing to do with any role that you might or might not have? What were you afraid that people might think? That you were showing too much knowledge about the way the scum kill works in this game?

It's especially interesting in light of his later reveal that he has no role or ability. I'm trying to envision why/how a vanilla townie feels the need to say something like that and having trouble. Presumably, from your own role, you would have no basis to think that this game was without a Mod. You would have had to gather that information from other people's posts.

I think the first person to explicitly speculate that we were without a Moderator at all in this game was Adel in #45. Elvis Knits earlier had "speculated" that various Mod. duties had been assigned to players as early as #8, and then says she thinks it's a modless game in #64.

So, did you think we were playing a Modless game when you posted #66?

Glork then makes the first of his two "serious" votes of the day, on Raj at #87/88. No reason given at this time except that he's "feeling" the Raj. wagon. Okay.

His next action is to press people to give an opinion on the number of scum on the current Mathcam wagon (consisting of Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits). Wants to know if people think there are more or less than two scum on this wagon.

Frankly, I found that whole line of inquiry bizarre. I mean, if you

knew

Mathcam was a townie, you could look at that wagon with suspicion - hell, looking back at it

now

might provide something of use. But at the time, it was very early, and we knew nothing. It was the equivalent of asking all the players "Do you think Macros is scum?" "Do you think Pooky is scum?" "Do you think phoebus is scum?" etc. At a time when no one is going to have well formed opinions about any of them. And for the reason, apparently, that you personally just didn't like the wagon?

I also note that you, Glork, did not answer your own question that you were so gung-ho to get other people to answer, and never gave any opinions about any of these people on the Mathcam wagon. You certainly didn't vote any of them for waggoning 'Cam. (you voted Macros very briefly later for an entirely different reason).

The person Glork

does

vote next is DGB, who comes along in #133 and jumps right on the 'Cam wagon. It is not my intention to defend DGB here, but I do note that this vote is entirely in keeping with her publicly expressed opinion that people should be wagoned early and often to make things happen in Mafia games. Which I believe is something you are aware of. So it really can't be considered much of a scum tell

for her

(which is not to say that it's pro-town play, or that I agree with this particular philosophy).

Despite knowing this about her, you vote her in #135. You say that pushing wagons blindly is (something anti-town). This appears to be as much a policy vote as a vote because you find her scummy.

Glork then makes the post that Pooky will criticize him for in
#139. Give me 5 reasons why Mathcam is scum.

DGB responds to this request in #144. Actually gives 7 reasons.

Glork's response to that is "REEEEEEEAAAAACH."

He elaborates in #148 where he seems to acknowledge that at least two of DGB's given reasons are actually legit, whereas the others are a stretch. This doesn't change his opinion on DGB. Now he thinks she waggoned first and went looking for reasons later, which = scummy.

That is probably the most legitimate point he has made in the game up to then. It certainly seemed like DGB was voting 'Cam just to make something happen - not because she had any particular suspicion of him, but when pressed, she comes up with a boatload of reasons for the vote, as though she actually found him suspicious before she voted, but just hadn't said so.

It does remind me a tiny bit about what Raj said about myself early on, however. He mentioned he saw "something" suspicious about me, and when pressed suddenly decided that every post I had made in the entire game up to that point was suspicious to him for one reason or another.

Pooky attacks Glork next for "setting up" DGB with his questioning and Glork responds Here. This post feels like a bit of deflection. Glork says that if DGB had declined to give him 5 reasons to suspect Cam - basically said "I don't have 5 reasons, I've got 2" or whatever, he'd have been satisfied. But it's the fact that DGB actually attempted to give 5+ reasons, including weak reasons, which has made him even more suspicious.

Pooky's response is that Glork was more or less "commanding" DGB to come up with 5 reasons, not asking if she had five reasons, so he should hardly be surprised when she gives them to him, and if some are consequently a stretch.

Glork's resolve appears to be weakening as of #179. Although he thinks he can usually get an accurate read on her, now he's just "baffled" by DGB. It's unclear to me why he should be less certain than he was before based on what's happening in the thread.

Then he makes what I consider his weakest vote. DGB had made a rather sweeping statement that she was seeing a "Glork-mathcam-macros" scum team, and Raj. posted that he "buys" that grouping. Glork instantly switches his vote off DGB and back to Raj.

The question is, if the person you are currently voting for is the one proposing the ridiculous (in your opinion) scum team, then why would you jump

off

that person and onto someone else for agreeing? How does that make DGB less likely to be scum and Raj. more? I can see where Raj would move on up the suspicious list, but not where it would make you want to jump your vote - except in as much as a DGB wagon was going nowhere at the present time and Raj. seemed to have more suspicion on him from others. Making it very much a vote of opportunity.

This vote sticks almost the rest of the day. Glork doesn't really talk about much else. There's some discussion about SL and if we think he can edit posts. Some diuscussion about DGB and if how she is playing is typical or not.

He maintains that he think Mathcam is town, without really going into it at any length. He's really not defending Cam

too

strongly for someone he thinks is town and who got pushed very close to lynch. What he does do is steadfastly maintain that Raj is obviously scum.

His PBPA of Raj is Here. It's not exactly an unbiased objective look, which Glork freely acknowledges.

I really don't like the patronizing tone of This post either. "Listen to me, son..." ?

And then, the last thing, which was his momentary diversion onto the Macros wagon, after it was revealed that Macros was the person who edited zu_Faul's death post.

It's "wagon, wagon, wagon" in #489. But then, unvote and back to Raj in #499. And what's the reason for the switch? Very hard to tell, but it

appears

to be because Pooky (and phoebus) said that Macros was a "terrible" player, and nothing more. Phoebus' post was not much of anything at all in point of fact. Just "oh dear, have none of you played with Macros before?" While Pooky more explicitly said "He's terrible."

What I don't like is why Glork would abandon the vote so quickly based on that kind of information. Macros does what is objectively an anti-town thing, and gets your vote, but when someone says (in essence) "well, he's terrible, so he might could do that and still be town," you immediately go (in essence) "oh really, well if he's

terrible

then I guess I won't vote him any more...." Which is just weird.

I found This post, after we realized Raj had been lynched, to be insincere and over the top. Who goes "Woo, die scum!" especially before we have even seen an alignment reveal?

And his next post "Oh boys and Girls I am so PROUD of you all" is more of the same.

Obviously hasn't come out today with anything.



That was what I wrote before. To this I suppose we can add that he's dropped off the face of the planet in this game as well.

[Werebear]

it appears everyone has.

[Adel]

I just replaced Coron in one of my games for inactivity.

Iguess everyone one here thinks they are too mature to play mafia.

[Coron]

I just replaced Coron in one of my games for inactivity.

Wha? Which game were you running?

[logicticus]

I had been out of town for a while, but am back now and will be more active.

Looking forward to nonny and werebears thoughts on this game.

[Adel]

I just replaced Coron in one of my games for inactivity.

Wha? Which game were you running?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8206
I had to prod you twice, and then I replaced you instead of prodding you a third time, in accordance the stated replacement policy (rule 12)