Mature Mafia: Game Over

[armlx]

Glork - 3 (DGB, Adel, Axel)
DGB - 3 (Logictus, Werebear, Glork)
Nonny - 2 (Talitha, armlx)
Adel - 1 (EK)
Tally- 1 (nonny)

Not Voting- 2 (Glork)

10 alive, 6 to lynch.

After a quick reread, DGB has just been DGB this game, while Glork's last post is questionable, and upon a quick read of his posts I can't really see the logic behind anything he has done this game. I would be more inclined to place my vote there.

[armlx]

EBWODP:

That is, under the assumption we need 1 more vote to get to a lynch.

[Glork]

Trust me.

[armlx]

Trust me.

Why?

[Talitha]

Well for a game that was stagnated, we now have everybody voting someone. Which is very cool.

Nonny, the main thing against you is that Macros outright lied. About something quite important. It's more than enough to lynch you dead dead dead. I have viewed your play in light of what I knew of Macors.. you have come into the game and been like one of those uber-helpful, always present IC-scum I see in newbie games. That is the vibe I got from you anyway - it reminded me of a certain type of scum that I've seen often. I was already biased against you due to Macros, and the conclusion I came to is that you're scum.

She yelled at phoebus to replace him self and then suspects his replacee due to the fact that he listened to her.

That's my reasoning? Wow. And I yelled? Gosh, if you are town and want to convince me of this, you'd do better not to misrepresent me, and you'd do much better to read my actual damn posts properly before trying to state my reasoning for me. This REALLY annoys me.

Seems to me you're mainly voting for me because I set a deadline that might get you lynched - am I right? Why do you think the activity has picked up, nonny? The deadline had to happen and be enforced in order to keep this game alive. There were a number of players who were really losing interest, including myself, but now the game feels alive again. You say you're pleased we're moving to night, but also say armlx wasn't given a fair chance to catch up, and use that as further reason against me... You can't have it both ways. This has been an unusual game and I like to think we're all doing the best we can to make it work.

[Talitha]

Deadline is just over 11 hours away. I want to sleep off my annoyance before deciding if I'm going to stick with nonny.

I don't know what to think of Glork. Would really like him to not be scum.

Would really like Axel to not be scum too.

Can you win a mafia game with hopeful thoughts? I hope so.

[DrippingGoofball]

Tally, Glork is scum. If you don't switch your vote to him, I will die.

[armlx]

Nonny, the main thing against you is that Macros outright lied. About something quite important. It's more than enough to lynch you dead dead dead.

Link plz?

[Glork]

Trust me.

Why?

'cause I'm smart?


Seriously, though. Did you see the false incredulousness with which Axel responded to my "Trust me"? The case he pushed against somebody whom he knows has not been around and who picked up flak D1 for defending Cam (who I still maintain was VERY OBVIOUSLY PROTOWN).

But, for shits and giggles, I'm going to risk the wrath of my boss and try to respond to his big angry post against me. Shall we?

[Glork]

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.

Obviously it is not a pointless suggestion if SOMEBODY HAD ALREADY EDITED A POST IN THE GAME. Given what we did (or did not, rather) know at the time, there seemed to be no reason for any protown player to edit any other player's post. Thus, I wanted to establish a precedent that would both maintain the integrity of the game and potentially make it easier to spot scum.

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.

Whether it's "unremarkable" or not is up for debate -- and probably largely dependent on one's alignment. I do not think, to a protown player, that the speculation I provided is obvious at all. Perhaps it was obvious to

you

(*coughdirtyscumbagcough*), but

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?

I launched into a discussion about how a modless mountainous game would work. I did not want anybody jumping to the conclusion that I was a vanilla townie based on the posted hypothetical. I've seen people jump to those kinds of conclusions before, and I wanted to avoid it if at all possible. What on earth makes you think I would post a disclaimer as scum revealing how we killed?

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 don't see how that makes anything more or less interesting. If people only tried to obfuscate their roles by speaking in hypotheticals and disclaimers when

power

, it would create a very obvious meta. And your presumption seems off. There are SEVERAL clues which led to me -- a Nilla Wafer -- concluding "Modless." Behold:
-Zu's posting of his own role upon death
-The editing of Zu's post
-Me having mod powers in the thread -- which NEVER happens in any other game
-EK's Post 8
-The whole "You're a big kid, you figure it out" reaction from the mod.
-Adel's Post 48
-My test edit of Post 52 and the surrounding discussion.
-The first sentence of
EK's Post 64

To insinuate that "Glork concluded we were modless" implies "Glork wasn't just a vanilla townie" is beyond ridiculous.

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?

See above. OBVIOUSLY I thought we were playing in a modless game at that point. Anybody with half a brain should have thought that. My Post 66 was an attempt to extrapolate the most likely mechanics of this game, so that we could get them out in the light and move on with the game itself.

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.

Check that. My vote for you may have been on a hunch, but it was still serious.

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?

*shrugs*

I don't believe I've ever done an over/under on scum on an early wagon before. I realize full well that my inquiry was roughly the equivalent of asking players to evaluate five people in one fell swoop. I realize that it was unorthodox (or "bizarre" as you put it).

What I contest, though, is your reaction about its utility. You sit here saying "Why would you do this when nobody has well-formed opinions of them?" I say that gives me that much MORE reason to make people talk about them. I've said this probably a dozen times in the past, and I'll say it a dozen more times before I go my way:

Forcing people to interact with each other on limited information is incredibly useful.

Note Macros' response to my question and my response to his response. He sat here and said, effectively, "hell if I know, it could be none or all." Glork's response:

Of course there could be zero or all scum on Cam right now, Macros. I'm not asking what you think is possible. I am asking what you think is the case. Out of {Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits}, do you think there are more or less than 1.5 scums?

If you can't understand what I'm going for after that, try my response to EK:

I'm not squashing the wagon. I'm trying to get an understanding of what people think of the wagoners.

If you still can't understand what I was going for, you are an ignorant cad.

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).

Nobody asked me to give an answer. Plus, the person calling the line shouldn't be placing bets. It skews the whole betting process.

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).

Early in D1, I don't see the harm in throwing my vote around when I see anti-town play.

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.

Yes, it's part policy. It's also part her being scummy. Way to state the obvious, champ. Now, what does that mean with regards to my alignment?

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."

This is all :goodposting:

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.

Also :goodposting:

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.

Hm. I went after RAJ for pushing a wagon then coming up with reasons for it. I went after DGB for pushing a wagon then coming up with reasons for it.

Well golly gee willikers. It's ALMOST like I'm

trying to find people who are being scummy and calling them out on it.

Who fucking knew?

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.

Information Instead of Analysis. Nothing to report here.

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.

Why should I be less certain?

When I accused DGB of being reaching scum, it's because she had just made a post in which she made up 5 reasons for suspecting Mathcam.

I called her out on this and then she

agreed with my analysis of her

. That is a reaction that I completely would NOT expect anyone to make -- regardless of alignment.

That is why I became baffled.

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.

Raj followed me onto you, claiming to see the same thing I saw on you early in the game. Here, he completely 100% bought into a proposed three-person scumgroup, which was flawed with several respects (I can get into these if absolutely necessary, but won't do so right now). DGB claimed to have found a three-person scumgroup on D1 based on interactions that I could only describe as being indicative of very novice scum. Her "Glork/Cam/Macros" group was simply

awful

and while I could tell right off the bat, Raj's reaction was "this is good, I agree, vote." That's terrible. Just terrible. Of course that's where my vote went.

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.

This sounds about right. In retrospect, I wish I'd been more vocal about defending Cam. I'm not upset about being wrong about Raj.

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

True story.

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

You obviously don't play with me enough. I like rhetoric, and I like being in control.

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."

That's p much what it was. I trusted Pooky's alignment by that point (though he was wrong about Glork and Cam), and was willing to give Macros a pass on the whole "Editing Zu's post" thing.

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.

Player X votes Player Y for doing A, because A is a scummy action.
Player Z says "I could see Y doing A as protown."
Player X's reason for voting Player Y immediately diminishes, provided X accept's Z's statement.

How the fuck could you possibly find this "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.

Again, you havent played with me enough. This is another one of those "if I had more time and if I cared more, I could pull examples from dozens of other games" things.

[Glork]

So, like... why exactly DO you want me dead, Axel?

[Glork]

Also nice how you decided DGB was expendable ~ 5 hours after declaring her "not necessarily scum." Didn't you say we could lynch you if you didn't put up something? Change your mind on that too?

DGB is not necessarily scum.
Glork is necessarily not scum.


There's a pretty fucking vast difference there. I probably won't get you lynched in the next twelve hours or whatever, but I can make sure you get killed tonight or tomorrow.

[elvis_knits]

Glork, what are you doing? We can't get an axel lynch at this late hour. Why not do an analysis on a player that might die?

[elvis_knits]

Glork, why does nonny prodding you make you think she's not scum? Maybe she's hoping you help get someone ese lynched other than her.

[Glork]

Nonny prodded me tonight again asking to post. I think if she were scum, she'd let me die off quietly, as I p much expect to be vigged tonight. Seriously, EK, nonnylynch is BAD.

Isn't this widely believed to be an all-vanilla game?

Then we'd have to lynch you, no? What's this vig'ing nonsense?

There were two deaths last night. YOU explain to ME how this is an "all-vanilla game."

[Glork]

Glork, what are you doing? We can't get an axel lynch at this late hour. Why not do an analysis on a player that might die?

My response was more defense than anything else.

Plus, DGB and I are the ones most on the chopping block and while I'd obviously prefer that she get lynched over me, I'd still push for a lynch elsewhere.

[elvis_knits]

When is the deadline today? I guess I have to choose between you and DGB now?

[Glork]

Glork, why does nonny prodding you make you think she's not scum? Maybe she's hoping you help get someone ese lynched other than her.

She prodded me at 2:34 PM ET. At the time, Glork Adel and DGB all had more votes than she did (unless I just fail miserably at counting). It wasn't a "save my ass" prod. It was a "get your ass in here and do something" prod (although it was far more polite -- she said "please").

[armlx]

Vote Glork

Of his counter argument, he just says "true that" to all the points I feel make him the scummiest (policy on DGB, skewed PBPA, the hunch vote on Axel) and counters the ones I could care less about (how he arrived at the game being modless, semantic arguments about "woots").

[elvis_knits]

I feel like he's reversed himself a lot for no reason at all. Like now he says Axel is scum... and I thought all along he's been saying Axel is town.

[logicticus]

yeah glork has been all over the place since he came back

i guess lurking really was working for him

[nonny]

Werebear

(due to Phoebus not explaining what made him lose interest in the game, and his weird "kill me" posts, etc., which were also not explained satisfactorally. And I don't understand why Werebear wants to lynch the players who claimed no mod powers... although this might have something to do with not having played much mafia lately; he is not used to how tricksy mods have become?)

I read this first part as, phoebus left with out telling us why. And if you go back and look, he was saying that he wasn't going to be any help to this game because he wasn't interested. Then you yelled at him to stop being lazy and replace himself. I read your posts perfectly clear.

Your other reason on werebear isn't your main one, nor does it seem strong to you since you crack it up to werebear not having played much lately.

I know the deadling has to happen, I'm on of the ones that asked for it. Armlx not having time to catch up wasn't nessacily a point against you, it was me being frustarted because I know if I was in that situation I wouldn't be very happy or helpful. My main point was that when I posted every one had just given up, that is not right to me. But, geez look now poeple are making and effort and thinking...yay! My vote is on your because through out the game even before I joined you were rubbing me the wrong way, for reasons stated previously. You knew pooky would follow your vote, you voted cam then never removed it till the wagon was over. You barely posted, anything besides checking in to see if a deadline were needed or wanted other who weren't posting to replace. You weren't suspicous of marcos until I replaced(would have to double check but i believe this is true) and your only thing against me is I'm too town and that is how IC scum in newbie games play? Uhm this isn't a newbie game, I don't know about you but I don't lump those play styles together either because playing IC and playing with Peers are far different. Plus this is silly reasoning and I hate reverting to this but if I were scum would I seriously change a vote at the last min and bring all this heat upon myself? Would I really be barking up a wall no one else is at when I could be finding reasons to vote DGB or Glork, and just move on to night? I personally don't think so.


I proded glork because multiple poeple wanted him to post. His posting is interesting, some makes sense but when he says axel will die tonight or tomorrow that makes me wonder. Is he claiming to be a vig? Or just making threats?

Logic I'm not sure how to read your most recent post, are you saying that is worked for him cause he suddenly has more insight or that it was better for him to be a shadow?

[Axelrod]

How nice Glork replied to my ("big angry") post of 3 weeks ago. That's very timely.

Here's another question: You said yesterday saying you thought DGB was scummy. You started this game day saying DGB was a "good place to start."

Then, right up against the deadline, you came back with "I don't think DGB is necessarily scum."

Then, you voted DGB to "save your ass" while still arguing she's not the best choice (which would be me now, yes?)

Why the shift in opinions on DGB? What did she do that struck you as townish? Vote for you, maybe?

[logicticus]

im saying, i feel like axel is getting the best in the exchange between himself and glork.

its making glork look scummy in my eyes, which he wasnt before.

so him lurking was beneficial to him because the spotlight wasnt on him

[nonny]

Glork has 4 votes. So when deadline hits looks like he is the lynch? What time is the deadline?