Mafia 83 - Game Ended Scum Win!

[chazworthington]

Ugh, I missed that. That might change things.

[qwints]

killa 7's lurking has grown intolerable. Since we haven't really had anything happen in two days, I'm going to

vote: Killa7

.

[bionicchop2]

Yeah. 3 of the remaining players are pretty much not here. If even 1 is town (pretty good chance reclusion is though not guaranteed), then getting a lynch on anybody is going to be tough.

[hasdgfas]

Ok, we had lovers that were both town. Do we really think both masons are town?

[qwints]

Mod, did Reclusion pick up their prod?

[MafiaSSK]

I am unable to tell.

[bionicchop2]

Ok, we had lovers that were both town. Do we really think both masons are town?

I find this statement to be scummy (and your previous statements on the subject). This is not because you question the alignment of a player - as that is obviously how the game is played. The scummy part is you are doing it without actually indicating any reasons to believe why either is scum. Having the masons (if legit) perceived as town and not suspects is very damaging to scum at this stage in the game.

I see what you are doing as simply trying to widen the field of suspicion to include as many players as possible, instead of actually trying to find scum. Do you think either is scummy in their play? If so, make a case as such. Yes, they could be scum, but their actions have not really caught my attention as scummy actions - which is why I am in the mindset to believe the claim right now.

In conclusion, instead of scum hunting in a situation where the game could end if we are wrong, you are just looking to expand the field of suspects as wide as possible.

[hasdgfas]

look bionic, I questioned the claim immediately upon it. I'm not going to take a claim at face value this late, especially a scummy claim like that immediately upon day starting. I'm not going to ignore them as possible scum because of a claim of unconfirmed masons as soon as day started. I've been nearly burned by that before, so when there's an iffy claim like that, of course I'm not going to look away. It has nothing to do with wanting to expand the field of suspects. Also, how is that scummy?

[bionicchop2]

look bionic, I questioned the claim immediately upon it. I'm not going to take a claim at face value this late, especially a scummy claim like that immediately upon day starting. I'm not going to ignore them as possible scum because of a claim of unconfirmed masons as soon as day started. I've been nearly burned by that before, so when there's an iffy claim like that, of course I'm not going to look away. It has nothing to do with wanting to expand the field of suspects. Also, how is that scummy?

It isn't about taking it at face value. It is about providing reasons to find somebody suspicious. If you don't want to believe the claim, then back it up with reasons why a player might be scum. You need to move past the who is possible scum and really start trying to find who is probable scum.

[Xtoxm]

Been a bit busy recently. Not that much has gone on as far as I can tell.

Well I am going to

Vote Reclusion

. Not seen conflicting knowledge of partners alignment before, and wouldn't expect it in a Normal.

[qwints]

I don't think we can do much until Reclusion (or his replacement) confirms my claim. I don't know his alignment, his actions will tell us a lot.

[bionicchop2]

Been a bit busy recently. Not that much has gone on as far as I can tell.

Well I am going to Vote Reclusion. Not seen conflicting knowledge of partners alignment before, and wouldn't expect it in a Normal.

So you are basing your vote entirely on the fact you have not seen this before and it makes it possible for reclusion to be scum? What other actions lead you to this conclusion?

[MafiaSSK]

I'm replacing Reclusion if he doesn't post in the next 2 days.

[chazworthington]

Apologies for lack of posting, will try to get more content in tonight. As a heads up, next Sunday-Tuesday I'll have very limited access again. But for now:

At the end of the day, I don't think qwintz's claim tells us much since all Reclusion can do is confirm they talk at night. If I'm understanding this correctly, neither mason can confirm the alignment of the other? (Never played with unconfirmed masons before). So the options are this:

1) qwintz is telling the truth about the masons - doesn't change anything since we don't have alignments and really only his word that he is town. Which sort of degates his entire post at the start of the day.

2) qwintz is lying - in this senario I see no reason for the SK to lie about a mason claim, but as scum its a great way to either i)absolve you and your partner of suspicion or ii)set up a townie to be lynched as LYLO is upon us.

2 is very unlikely, as all Reclusion has to do is deny qwintz claim. So I'm willing to believe they are talking at night, but that doesn't really help us. I think we need to ignore the mason claim for now.

The above all assumes I'm understanding unconfirmed masons.

@ cow regarding the setup: I seem to remember MAfiaSSK mentioning he ran his setup by Adel. I've no desire to play outguess the mod, but Adel would be a good choice to look at a complicated setup.

My brief thoughts on the players, to be elaborated on tonight:

cow - at least twice cow has asked what he's done that's scummy. I think my main answer to that at the moment would be the lack of scum hunting from him. Also not thrilled with the timing of him claiming to believe Panzer D3. Could be scum.

BC - I don't think he's scum, but I need to look at a couple of his posts that I don't have time to do right now before confirming that. He is up in the list for the SK role, however.

k7 - I'm really torn here. Yaw went after JEbus and Netman hard D1 and they flipped town. He also went after k7 early D1. I don't know if this was because k7 was an easy target, or because he wanted to bus a lurker scumbuddy. Could be scum or SK.

Reclusion - Really no good read here for me. The biggest question mark is why ask for a temporary replacement for a 4 week period. Almost sounds like she has a role and doesn't want to lose it. Again, that points to a SK role.

qwintz - Pretty solid posting, but I need to review his posts more. I don't like post 345 back in D1 when he moved onto Jebus after a couple moved to Gnome. Yaw tried to do the same thing earlier. Maybe scum

Xtoxm - I'm not seeing much from him with regards to his usual posting. I also don't like his voting for Reclusion today. Maybe scum. I don't think he's the SK.

At the moment, I'll

unvote; vote: Xtoxm

[qwints]

Let me clarify. Reclusion knows from role info that I am town. I do not know from role info that Reclusion is. We can talk during the day and during the night. We have not talked much because he hasn't been here a lot.

[Xtoxm]

Been a bit busy recently. Not that much has gone on as far as I can tell.

Well I am going to Vote Reclusion. Not seen conflicting knowledge of partners alignment before, and wouldn't expect it in a Normal.

So you are basing your vote entirely on the fact you have not seen this before and it makes it possible for reclusion to be scum? What other actions lead you to this conclusion?

That is information enough by itself.

Why WOULD there be a role you hadn't met before in a Normal. There wouldn't. That role wouldn't make a Normal game.

If a cop claims a guilty on someone, and all previous games the cop has been sane, is it not a fair assumption that this cop is sane too? [does not refer to this sites Normal games]

[hasdgfas]

Let me clarify. Reclusion knows from role info that I am town. I do not know from role info that Reclusion is. We can talk during the day and during the night. We have not talked much because he hasn't been here a lot.

Day

and

night? One-way confirmations? really?

[bionicchop2]

Why WOULD there be a role you hadn't met before in a Normal. There wouldn't. That role wouldn't make a Normal game.

Masons are a normal role. If a mod throws a subtle variation on it, it still falls into the normal category. Unconfirmed masons seem to be fairly common around here. If I get a chance, I will see which of my games had them. What I haven't seen is a game where the unconfirmed part is anything more than just a red herring.

[bionicchop2]

Also, if you are voting solely based on the fact you haven't heard of the role in a normal game (thus assuming the role is a lie), then why are you voting for reclusion over qwints? In order for your statement to be valid, it would have to mean qwints is scum (especially since he is the one who claimed it and reclusion has not confirmed it yet). You chose to vote the player who has not been around though, instead of the player who claimed the role you think doesn't exist. Don't feel like voting a player who could defend themself?

[Xtoxm]

Not alternating masons.

[bionicchop2]

Not alternating masons.

choosing to ignore the rest of the post? Why vote reclusion instead of the person who claimed the role - qwints?

[bionicchop2]

Mini 614 - game was a mini-normal with one confirmed mason and the other unconfirmed.

yes, I am a Mason with Crazy. However, it should be said that although I am told he should know that I am innocent, I do not know which side he is on. Yes, our mod is just that mean.

Your vote is now based on a false assumption.

[bionicchop2]

lol, I just noticed we have the same mod in this game as that game. Case closed.

[hasdgfas]

lol, I just noticed we have the same mod in this game as that game. Case closed.

were there also lovers in that game?

[Xtoxm]

Because Qwints can only be scum if both are scum, and even if Rec is I doubt it, because it wouldn't say scum mason on death, confirming Qwints scum.

Fair enough. Doesn't clear her.

Why are you defending her so hard?