Mini 698 - Georgetown Mafia - Game over

[Apothecary]

Alright. I admit to all three of your reasons.
When I misrepresented "claiming vanilla townie is suicide" I thought you meant at anytime. I did not read the part about "At L-1". That's me simply screwing up, and also trying to discredit you. Claiming a power role is a good defense, but can cause problems later on.

As for a no Lynch day 1, I admit that does sound a little weak. I just don't like the idea of sacrificing two people a day to get anywhere, when if we could lose one person that would be much preferable, with the extra voting power. But I also realise that having a lynch also has a possibilty of catching a scum, and many people would take that chance. It's probably the more pragmatic option. I also said that, cause I'm the one up for the lynch.

I actually don't understand the last one. Is that where I wrote about role claiming "making it practically impossible to use it effectivly" or something else. Please elaborate.

[StrangerCoug]

You forgot about my opinion of just claiming vanilla if that's what you really are, but I think your defense covers it anyway.

About the last one, I was saying in general, but while that was not what I was thinking about when I wrote that, you're on the right track. If you have a power role at L-1, then you should claim it. Yes, in most cases your role becomes useless after doing so, but nobody except scum wants to lynch a doc, cop, vigilante, etc. That's why I said what I said.

[Apothecary]

Wait. Where I said that I that I'd be suspicious of someone claiming the doctor role, and that I'd be very suspicious of a doctor surving two days after the claim. That's just my paranoia.

I don't want to lynch you, as if you really are the doctor, that'd be pretty bad for us.

[Cephrir]

And to answer your question Ceph...scum don't have to fully read as they already know alignments.

Yes, but they still need to look for power roles and come up with fake suspects.

That is what makes me think that you not fully reading is a Scum tell. Also, you got very defensive, if not over defencive after I voted you...you even FOSed me for being a Scumbuddy even though we don't have a confirmed Scum yet. [/quote]
Overdefensiveness if not a scumtell, it's a natural reaction. And yes, we do have an all but confirmed scum. His name is StrangerCoug.

@Llama: I've been caught up. Is there something I'm not commenting on that I should be?

Anyway, I'm happy lynching either Apoth or MM today. I would only be mildly surprised if Apoth/MM/SC were all scum. If any of them is town they can be replaced by Ythill. If I had to pick Apoth or MM for scum in a void I think I'd go for MM, but now that Apoth has claimed vanilla it's probably best to lynch him. Consider this an

FoV

because having people at L-1 makes me slightly nervous. The recent post about no lynching being better than lynching him is just awful, especially since we started with an odd number.

[MacavityLock]

I believe you're at L-1. Time to claim apothecary.

It's L-2, actually. Why the hurry?

It was (and still is) L-1, unless I'm miscounting. SC, ML, Corvuus, Yt, Qwintz voting with 6 to lynch.

I'm not going to claim a power role.

This is very strange to me. This might be semantics, but Apoth makes it sound like he has a choice in the matter. (Note the difference in connotation between "I'm not a power role." and "I'm not going to claim a power role.") Only scum really do have a choice in this situation, though given his earlier opinion of townie fake-claiming... Anyway, I would've hoped he learned his lesson on that by now. This is minor, I certainly wouldn't call this damning evidence, but it's not going to change my opinion of Apoth-scum.

Consider this an

FoV

because having people at L-1 makes me slightly nervous.

FoV? Is that a Finger of Voting? I'm not sure I get it.

[Elmo]

Apothecary seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of flak for what he actually did. The only thing I found interesting was his contradiction with respect to SC. His stance on claims is mixed up, lots of newbies bring up No Lynch, the "misrepresentation" looks more like misinterpretation to me, "not making sense" is not a scumtell, etc. I dislike this situation, because (from my point of view) he could still flip scum fairly easily, but nonetheless I don't like the way this wagon's going, and feel a need to state that.

I also really don't like the timing of qwint's vote. Comes in, here are my initial impressions on a quick read through, now let me put someone at L-1 seven hours later with an epicly weak reason. That's pretty opportunistic, at best; I could easily see a scumbag coming in and trying to push through the easy lynch. 541 is a pretty terrible reason for a vote, even in isolation.

If I had to pick Apoth or MM for scum in a void I think I'd go for MM, but now that Apoth has claimed vanilla it's probably best to lynch him.

No way, active lurker >>> claimed vanilla. She is

dying

for a wagon.

I

should

get read up within a couple days now, unless something else goes wrong with my computer.

[Ythill]

It was (and still is) L-1, unless I'm miscounting. SC, ML, Corvuus, Yt, Qwintz voting

with 6 to lynch.

Bold added for emphasis. My bad, I'm used to minis where it's 7 to lynch on D1, I'd forgotten about this. Luckily it was brought up before somebody believed me and accidentally hammered.

unvote

My vote will likely come back to Rx in a little while, but I just woke up (yay Sunday!) and I want to get some coffee in me, study Rx's defenses, and honor his request for a condensed case before I make that decision.

Personally, I still believe you're scum, but I'm probaly reacting badly from your methods.

This has been known to happen. I can be a bastard when I think I'm onto someone.

[qwints]

I also really don't like the timing of qwint's vote. Comes in, here are my initial impressions on a quick read through, now let me put someone at L-1 seven hours later with an epicly weak reason. That's pretty opportunistic, at best; I could easily see a scumbag coming in and trying to push through the easy lynch. 541 is a pretty terrible reason for a vote, even in isolation.

Sure, some new players advocate no lynch due to naivete. BUT this isn't Apoth's first game and he has made a lot of basic 'mistakes' that there's not really a reason to. I voted not "in isolation", but based on a failure of Apothecary to improve his understanding. Look at Apoth's post 540:

Oh yeah Ythill, cause two townies dead in one day is certainly better!
But of course you wouldn't care about that, because you're scum.

This was in response to a great deal of criticism for suggesting no lynch.

On the claim that I moved too quickly in voting - I don't feel the need to ease into a game once it's well under way. In the time between my initial read and my vote, I looked back through the thread. A key piece, which others have highlighted, is apoth suggesting that SC might be lying town. This statement seems to be trying to inoculate SC against the counter-claim that (I believe) is coming eventually.

[Ythill]

I'm not going to claim a power role.

That's not what I meant. “Townie” is an alignment, not a role, hence not a claim. Now that you have clarified that you're not claiming power, I will accept “townie” to mean vanilla. I agree that your claims (both of them) have the ring of a choice, rather than a truthful statement, but I don't know how telling that is.

Anyway, here's the condensed case...

1. Not reading the thread, evidenced by the random-stage question and the vote for discussion when there was plenty of discussion.
2. Lack of suspicions by page 8.
3. Fence-sitting on SC in #196.
4. Lurking (which is linked to points 1&2 above).
5. Quick defenses (#176 is one example) in spite of point 1, suggesting that you not reading the thread is an act (note that this point actually counters point 1).
6. Post #227, in which you defend yourself against accusations aimed at someone else.
7. Ingenuous suspicions against myself (in #367) and SC (in #314, retracted in #367).
8. Making a bold claim (SC is ‘nilla fake-claiming doc) without evidence and then trying to pretend you didn’t say it when questioned.
9. Illogical defenses to some of the above points (see my #402).
10. Another illogical defense in #431.
11. Argument for no-lynch; though it is possible you are just wrong here, because other evidence points to your n00bness, so I see that this could be a null-tell.

So there you have it, Rx. If you are town, I implore you to argue rationally against me. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before and have no desire to mislynch today. In your favor are Llama’s attacks and qwint’s L-1 vote on you, since they are also on my suspect list, though I wouldn’t blame either of them for bussing you with the way you’ve been playing and Llama quickly counteracts his attacks against you by going balls-to-the-wall against one of your attackers (me).

@ everyone:

I'm going to leave my vote off for the moment. However, I will revote Rx if he doesn't defend well against the above,

even if that vote is the hammer

, so I wouldn't recommend putting him @ L-1 again unless you are willing to see him swing.

Also, during my reread I noticed a couple of things unrelated to the above.

First, in spite of the smoking gun dropped by Llama (the model of validity point), I still get a townie vibe from skimming his posts. It’s possible I’m overreacting. I’m still going to consider him a suspect for now, but I don’t know that he’s a good lynch for D1. IGMEOY will suffice.

Secondly, one of Llama’s points against me was that I quickly changed my vote from Atlas to Rx

without even trying to keep an Atlas wagon alive

when the SC wagon fell apart. However, my reread reminded me that I made four posts between the SC claim and my Rx vote, including #353, in which I asked, “Anyone up for an Atlas wagon?”

[Cephrir]

FoV? Is that a Finger of Voting? I'm not sure I get it.

Finger of Vote. It means my vote's effectively on him except for the part where he actually gains a vote, or just an intent to vote. Turns out it's a good thing I didn't, I was believing Ythill's count.

No way, active lurker >>> claimed vanilla.

I disagree. And besides, it's not like Apoth will make it through the game without being lynched (barring something really good, right now), and it's not like MM will get through the game without getting wagoned.

[Corvuus]

i'm not too sure what to say or add at this point.

Regardless of SC's true alignment, he will die at some point.

Ythill/Llama, i think it is better for town to wait until later to worry about it.

I guess it depends on what Apoth says next but even if it is the most amazing post known to man, I am not sure what I would do then other than still lynching him.

I do think that before we lynch we should have everyone mention their top 2 scum picks at least?

Corvuus

[StrangerCoug]

I do think that before we lynch we should have everyone mention their top 2 scum picks at least?

Apothecary and LlamaFluff.

[MacavityLock]

I do think that before we lynch we should have everyone mention their top 2 scum picks at least?

Why? What does this do other than give scum a better idea of who the most obvious townies are?

[StrangerCoug]

I do think that before we lynch we should have everyone mention their top 2 scum picks at least?

Why? What does this do other than give scum a better idea of who the most obvious townies are?

How does naming off one's top two suspects give scum a better idea of who the most obvious townies are? We've all been doing this all game, MacavityLock. What gives now?

[qwints]

I think he's saying that everyone naming their two townies makes it crystal clear to the scum who they should nk.

[StrangerCoug]

But Corvuus never asked who everyone thought the two towniest players were.

[qwints]

It's called process of elimination. They kill one of the group of people not listed.

[StrangerCoug]

I had the worst case scenario worded differently in my head (keep the people named around so the scum can set them up to fall), but the end result is the same.

[Apothecary]

In the beginning I didn't feel commited to the game and didn't really get into it, just watching it for a while, and not posting. This was lurking and I should have made an effort to be more a part of this game. (Points 1, 4 & 2)

My fence sitting of SC in the beginning was because I, again, didn't really take part in the game, and I didn't want to commit at that point. Plus the way it was worded did make it look a lot weaker.
I meant he could've been a confident that the accusations wouldn't lead up to a lynch. (point 3)

I often feel really threatened in these sorts of games when people press me. But 176 was a post because people asked why I voted for Corvuus. (Point 5)

Post 227, where I was defending Primate was because I didn't like the idea that we should get rid of him for his odd posting style. I also thought that Corvuus was also making an attack against me for not posting more. (point 6)

As for my "ingenious suspicions" I never posted anything agaisnt you. I was just concerned that you were barking up the wrong tree. But that statement about SC being a vanilla fakeclaiming was a pile of crap, I know. That was a stupid belief I had, and I just feeling a little pity for him, because he could've been town. (point 7 & 8).

As for my illogical defences, I am not exactly a veteran player at this, so I am not very good creating an argument to defend myself (as evidenced now). I also failt to read fully throught some posts, and this causes problems. (points 9 & 10)

The argument for a no-lynch is just me being a conservative. I would prefer to only lose one town player, than lose two in one day. But I do understand that it is the more pragmatic approach to win the game. I'm still rather naive in this game so I often go for a no lynch instead of a townie lynch (ie, me).

I hope this is enough, but if not, okay then, fire away.

[qwints]

Just as an aside:

Don't think of lynching a townie versus not lynching a townie. Think of it as lynching potential scum and gaining information versus doing nothing.

If we don't lynch, we'll have one dead innocent tomorrow (assuming one unblocked nk) to re-read today in light of. If we do, we'll have two to analyze - without costing us any time. Furthermore, there's the added bonus of all the information we get leading up to the lynch. It's a lot easier for people to be noncommittal if no one is lynched. Lynching scum, on day 1, is just an extra bonus you sometimes get.

[LlamaFluff]

First, lets not hammer untill Jazz comes back ok? We dont go to night when someone has been missing for as long as she has.

Second, everyone outlining their top few suspects is double edged. I did this once in a large game as scum (SC should remember that game), and gained a huge advantage as it let the scum know who the town suspected heavily, future wagon possibilities, and who was in control the most. At the same time though it does force people to make a concrete pick on who scum is, which prevents easy hops. In this case though I think most people have a pretty good idea of who most people do suspect.

Just no one put this day to rest before Jazz comes back. My posting will stay a bit limited over the next couple weeks due to finals, but I still should be able to post on a daily basis, maybe just not as indepth.

[Ythill]

@apoc: Not committed to the game? Why weren't you curious and anxious to find the scum? Why didn't you want to commit to an opinion on SC?

I often feel really threatened in these sorts of games when people press me. But 176 was a post because people asked why I voted for Corvuus. (Point 5)

So you admit that you were reading along. Then why did you ask if we were out of the random stage when it was obvious?

If we don't lynch, we'll have one dead innocent tomorrow (assuming one unblocked nk) to re-read today in light of. If we do, we'll have two to analyze - without costing us any time.

This sounds like you know Rx to be town.

[qwints]

Nope, I was explaining that

Lynching scum, on day 1, is just an extra bonus you sometimes get.

[StrangerCoug]

In the beginning I didn't feel commited to the game and didn't really get into it, just watching it for a while, and not posting. This was lurking and I should have made an effort to be more a part of this game. (Points 1, 4 & 2)

Confessing your crimes, Apothecary, huh? Tsk, tsk.

My fence sitting of SC in the beginning was because I, again, didn't really take part in the game, and I didn't want to commit at that point. Plus the way it was worded did make it look a lot weaker.
I meant he could've been a confident that the accusations wouldn't lead up to a lynch. (point 3)

Being noncommittal is scummy.

I often feel really threatened in these sorts of games when people press me. But 176 was a post because people asked why I voted for Corvuus. (Point 5)

If you're going to play Mafia, you will have to live with this. Yes, to the initiate, Mafia can be a living nightmare. But, in my opinion anyway, you improve only by playing. That's why I haven't given up playing despite my losing record as both town and scum.

As for my "ingenious suspicions" I never posted anything agaisnt you. I was just concerned that you were barking up the wrong tree. But that statement about SC being a vanilla fakeclaiming was a pile of crap, I know. That was a stupid belief I had, and I just feeling a little pity for him, because he could've been town. (point 7 & 8).

Oh,

NOW

you think I'm telling the truth.

As for my illogical defences, I am not exactly a veteran player at this, so I am not very good creating an argument to defend myself (as evidenced now). I also failt to read fully throught some posts, and this causes problems. (points 9 & 10)

I believe this is called the newbie card.

The argument for a no-lynch is just me being a conservative. I would prefer to only lose one town player, than lose two in one day. But I do understand that it is the more pragmatic approach to win the game. I'm still rather naive in this game so I often go for a no lynch instead of a townie lynch (ie, me).

Yes, we want as few townies to die as possible. But even mislynches give us info to work on. Think about it.

[Corvuus]

I guess it is just being balanced.

I don't think it is good to lynch anyone without knowing where everyone sort of is since by virtue of stating their top suspicion at least, they would have to comment or say something about it. So while it may be controlling and scum could use it, I think town could use it just as well, and potentially also better.

I also think the argument is somewhat moot since several people have stated their scum-town leanings on players and based on what people have said alone, I have an idea of what to expect later regardless of who everyone says are their top 2.

Corv