Choose Carefully Mafia: (Game Over)

[Moses le fou]

I don't know what the whole point of this ability is either. My guess is that the mod just wants to throw in extra confusion. I don't really see anything I could talk about at night with armlx that I couldn't during the day.

This. I don't even talk with confirmed alignment masons much usually.

I'm down with the Santos wagon. The last 4 posts have been buddying, going from poking suspicion at my/CC's role to "believing it entirely", and distancing from a wagon.

Vote Santos

Don't forget his raging hard-on for Riceballtail.

[Save The Dragons]

Empking is short and sweet, that's pretty much how he does things from what I've seen. He has his uses on some players though. Personally if you HAVE played with Emp and you're suspicious of him at this stage in the game for essentially doing what he always does, IGMEYO.

Yes, because lackluster participation that appears scummy should be encouraged and used as meta, not treated as scummy.

RE: Santos,

I didn't like the "I don't want to participate in gun/rope" shtick.

I really didn't like the "I'm jumping on Moses because I want to put pressure on a bandwagon no wait I'm going to unvote him now."

I didn't like how he called out Riceballtail as doing a good job.

Santos wagon FTW

Vote: Santos

[armlx]

Don't forget his raging hard-on for Riceballtail.

The last 4 posts have been

buddying

...

I didn't.

Yes, because lackluster participation that appears scummy should be encouraged and used as meta, not treated as scummy.

Well, its not scummy as he does it regardless of alignment (see Xyl's Smalltown), but it is anti-town. This means that lynching him in any specific game results in sacrificing results in that game for results later when he (presumably) reforms a bit after being lynched a few times for simply being anti-town. The question is whether that's worth it.

[christiano drago]

Empking is short and sweet, that's pretty much how he does things from what I've seen. He has his uses on some players though. Personally if you HAVE played with Emp and you're suspicious of him at this stage in the game for essentially doing what he always does, IGMEYO.

Yes, because lackluster participation that appears scummy should be encouraged and used as meta, not treated as scummy.

I think Kuribo seems to have battled him long and hard over it in the past to no avail, eventually he just decided to not play with him anymore from what I gathered in the Ganglands PD Mini, so chances are that chasing Emp for this will not change him, only [more than likely] lose us a townie.

If you honestly believe he is Scum for reasons other than the size of his input, then go ahead and chop him. I'll not defend him outside this issue, so you'll probably not have much of an argument to deal with.

Tempted to stick a bit more pressure on Santos here - his rabid Rice love is rousing suspicion faster than a dirty old man in a heavy brown coat next to a kiddies park.

FoS:Santos

and if you don't give me a reason not to - it'll be my vote.

[Save The Dragons]

I should probably amend my statement...

I realize that players do play anti-town ways, and there's not much you can do to change them. People don't change just because others (or I) would like them to.

My biggest problem I don't want to give a free pass to a player that could be suspicious just because he's doing what he always does. I misread your post, which basically states what I believe (that going after him for doing what he always does is counterproductive). I guess I'll just keep my eye on the situation and see if I can figure out any tells, although it will be hard for me to determine what is normal and what is not (and I have no intention of looking) so I bet over the course of this game I'll probably vote him several times.

[bird1111]

Vote Count:
Santos (5): ZazieR, Riceballtail, Moses le fou, armlx, Save the Dragon
CarnCarn (2): Sineish, Empking
Empking (2): CarnCarn, oEJo
Save the Dragons (1): ZTR
Battle Mage (1): SocioPath
SocioPath (1): christiano drago,
oEJo (1): hp [leaves]
Riceballtail (1): Battle Mage

Not voting (2): Thunder, Santos

With 16 alive it is 9 to lynch.

Lynch Method Vote Count:
Gun (6): CarnCarn, ZazieR, hp [leaves], oEJo, christiano drago, ZTR
Rope (6): Save the Dragons, Riceballtail, armlx, Empking, Sineish, Moses le fou

Not voting for a lynch method (5): Battle Mage, Thunder, SocioPath, Santos, hp [leaves]

If a lynch were to happen without any change in lynch method votes, the Gun would be used.

Thunder replaces Rich.

[Thunder]

Greetings...I see some new faces..and some very familiar ones.. I will read the thread and post more later

[ZTR]

Change Vote: Santos

I don't want to look like a moron with my vote still on STD.

I'll be back on in an hour to read up on everything..hopefully.

[Save The Dragons]

Anyone who votes me ever is clearly a moron.

[CarnCarn]

Welcome, Thunder.

I don't know about EmpKing meta and I haven't heard anyone else vouch for it except CD, so I'm thinking he is still scummy.

I'm not really buying the Santos wagon. It's based off of his buddying with RBT and his desire to avoid committing to a lynch method. Neither are scum tells to me. It would really take pretty dense scum to openly ally/brownose the way Santos did. Also, I think he should commit to a lynch method mostly because it doesn't really matter which one is picked day 1 (but does help to guage people's reactions and preferences for method).

So, for now, I'm still keeping my vote on EmpKing.

[Santos]

I'm down with the Santos wagon. The last 4 posts have been buddying, going from poking suspicion at my/CC's role to "believing it entirely", and distancing from a wagon.

Maybe because I have a very similar role to what you two have claimed. Though, in this case, I do not advise my 'mason' to announce it now.[/quote]

[CarnCarn]

Maybe because I have a very similar role to what you two have claimed. Though, in this case, I do not advise my 'mason' to announce it now

Interesting. I also assume you are talking about unconfirmed alignment. In which case, I don't see what the harm would be of that person stepping up, although I don't see any benefit from that person stepping up, either.
What I find strange is how you didn't believe what I was talking about, at first. You probably could have figured out I had a similar role.

[Santos]

Where did I not believe you?

[armlx]

and I haven't heard anyone else vouch for it except CD

Hi. See Xyl's Smalltown

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8937

Just use the display all posts options from Empking.

Santos, if that is indeed your role, step up. In that case its pretty much confirmed due to set up symmetry being cool that one of each group is scum.

[Santos]

Santos, if that is indeed your role, step up. In that case its pretty much confirmed due to set up symmetry being cool that one of each group is scum.

Did you 'Choose Carefully' in saying that or did you just completely hop the fence and come to that conclusion?

[armlx]

Did you 'Choose Carefully' in saying that or did you just completely hop the fence and come to that conclusion?

Realistic Mafia

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7882

That is all.

The general conclusion would be if 4 of us had that role that in order for the mafia groups to be balanced relative to each other either all 4 people with the role would have to be town or exactly 2 scum, one from each group. Its possible that they would be arranged S1-S2 and T-T, but T-S1 and T-S2 is more likely on design principle.

[Moses le fou]

Did you 'Choose Carefully' in saying that or did you just completely hop the fence and come to that conclusion?

Realistic Mafia

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7882

That is all.

The general conclusion would be if 4 of us had that role that in order for the mafia groups to be balanced relative to each other either all 4 people with the role would have to be town or exactly 2 scum, one from each group. Its possible that they would be arranged S1-S2 and T-T, but T-S1 and T-S2 is more likely on design principle.

It's possible that all four of you could be scum.

In any case, Santos's quasi-RC doesn't affect my thoughts on his scumminess either way, though it does make me want to lynch him more (though just a little). Lynching one of the four would give us a way to lean on the other three. Obviously, we'd need confirmation on the ID of Santos's partner first.

[armlx]

It's possible that all four of you could be scum.

How? If we were scum such as two groups of S1-S2. that would be dumb as the joke would be obvious and the whole game would be decided by whether the scum wanted to start killing each other at a given point or not (I was in a game like that forever ago, it was not fun, too much swings on how spiteful people are).

The other scenario would be 2 groups of people just straight up lying. Do you believe this is likely?

[Moses le fou]

It's possible that all four of you could be scum.

How? If we were scum such as two groups of S1-S2. that would be dumb as the joke would be obvious and the whole game would be decided by whether the scum wanted to start killing each other at a given point or not (I was in a game like that forever ago, it was not fun, too much swings on how spiteful people are).

The other scenario would be 2 groups of people just straight up lying. Do you believe this is likely?

I think it's very possible that at least one, if not both, of the groups are lovered up, which would give them incentive not to start killing each other like that.

[ZTR]

Anyone who votes me ever is clearly a moron.

Must.......change.......vote.........again.......

[Santos]

Define: 'Scummy'

And how I have acted as so.

[armlx]

I think it's very possible that at least one, if not both, of the groups are lovered up, which would give them incentive not to start killing each other like that.

That's even worse. Penalizing your win condition for the poor play of another win conditions?

[Moses le fou]

I think it's very possible that at least one, if not both, of the groups are lovered up, which would give them incentive not to start killing each other like that.

That's even worse. Penalizing your win condition for the poor play of another win conditions?

I don't follow you.

[armlx]

My point is cross scum group lovers is just dumb, as in the end it penalizes one alignment for the poor play of another and creates a lot of "everyone dies" and/or "happily ever after" scenarios.

[Riceballtail]

ROCKS FALL EVERYBODY DIES

Continue?