Mafia 88- Return to New Catania- Game Over!

[Seraphim]

If you want me to claim, I will do so. If the town wants me to claim, I will. I have no objection to it.

[Hoopla]

I know I haven't made a case on you - but I think you're the next best lynch after Sir T, whose wagon seems to have died.

And, yeah, this is something that really ticks me off. If you think someone is scum,

vote for them

and try to convince others to do so too. Keeping quiet and just saying "I think X is scum, but I am not voting for him because the wagon died" without trying to push that wagon when we are an entire week away from deadline is just pathetic. OGML is at least sticking to his guns and still insisting that I am scum (although not doing a terribly good job of it; perhaps due to the holidays), but what are you doing? Apart from following other people?

So we should all be stubborn and stick to who we think is scum? This seems suboptimal for the town. If you'd like an excuse for my play I'm more than happy to share what my plan has been.

At the start of D1 I voted no-lynch which helped myself and others generate reads on other plays and allowed a lively start to the game. The game then plateaued and died due to lurking and replacements. I made cases on players - as did others, but the fact so much of the town (yourself including for a while) remained inactive we weren't going anywhere. So I decided lurker-hunting was the most viable way to kickstart play again so we had a read on more players - and more importantly had more opinions in the game so current conversation wasn't being dominated by a smaller group.

My current vote of Seraphim I explained my reasoning behind. If I choose to vote you again I'll articulate my reasons more thoroughly - but it seems redundant now that you've decided to replace out.

And, note, that a considerable amount of OGML's accusations against me were based on the premise that I was "setting up a Seraphim lynch". You agreed with that. Why the hell are you voting for Seraphim now then? And, note that you are doing that while maintaining that he is not your number one suspect, and you are voting him only due to the deadline. Can you please decide who you are going to pretend is scummy or not before accusing and being consistent at that?

I'd rather lynch you as it saves us getting a new player into the game. I think it's very plausible you were 'setting him up', but also upon looking at Seraphim closer now, I could see him as scum. I'd wager to say one of you is scum - but not both.

[Sir Tornado]

So we should all be stubborn and stick to who we think is scum? This seems suboptimal for the town. If you'd like an excuse for my play I'm more than happy to share what my plan has been.

And it's optimal to not make a case against your main suspect at all?

At the start of D1 I voted no-lynch which helped myself and others generate reads on other plays and allowed a lively start to the game. The game then plateaued and died due to lurking and replacements. I made cases on players - as did others, but the fact so much of the town (yourself including for a while) remained inactive we weren't going anywhere. So I decided lurker-hunting was the most viable way to kickstart play again so we had a read on more players - and more importantly had more opinions in the game so current conversation wasn't being dominated by a smaller group.

What are you trying to say here? Is this some sort of rhetoric you are using to try to bull shit your way into some position? Because it certainly doesn't answer any question I asked you, most importantly the following:

- Why haven't you made any case against me yet?
- You explain that the only time you attacked me (if it can be called an attack) was in a post where you agreed with OGML, followed by you saying you were happy with OGML lynch too. Anything you want to say for yourself on this?

I'd rather lynch you as it saves us getting a new player into the game. I think it's very plausible you were 'setting him up', but also upon looking at Seraphim closer now, I could see him as scum. I'd wager to say one of you is scum - but not both.

So, let me get this straight

- You say I am your main suspect
- You think only one of Seraphim and me can be scum
- You vote for Seraphim because there are no takers for my wagon.

Excellent.

[Hoopla]

- Why haven't you made any case against me yet?
- You explain that the only time you attacked me (if it can be called an attack) was in a post where you agreed with OGML, followed by you saying you were happy with OGML lynch too. Anything you want to say for yourself on this?

I'm going to link the posts you're talking about so we can get it straight - I presume you mean 312. In this post I voted OGML to try and get a reason behind his vote on you. This is further illustrated in this exchange between 316, 318, 325 and 328. What happens next is OGML declines to answer this case until 549, despite posting in between.

What bothered me, which I mention in my 665 is that OGML made the majority of his case on you after his initial claims of you being scum. I dislike the fact he evaded a question after being asked more than once - but when he did answer his case was still very valid and I agree with him. This is how I got my feeling of scum from him

and

you.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Since you seem to be doing most of the questioning, I'd like to flip this around and ask you something:

Player A thinks Player B is scum. Player B thinks player C is scum. Because A thinks B is scum, does this give A a town read on C due to what B thinks of C?

[Sir Tornado]

Player A thinks Player B is scum. Player B thinks player C is scum. Because A thinks B is scum, does this give A a town read on C due to what B thinks of C?

No. But only if he has a case on Player C independently. If he is simply going to say "I agree with Player B, so I think Player C is scum", then following that with "I am happy with a player B lynch too"; it is certainly dodgy.

Also,

So, let me get this straight

- You say I am your main suspect
- You think only one of Seraphim and me can be scum
- You vote for Seraphim because there are no takers for my wagon.

Excellent.

Do you agree?

[Hoopla]

Also,

So, let me get this straight

- You say I am your main suspect
- You think only one of Seraphim and me can be scum
- You vote for Seraphim because there are no takers for my wagon.

Excellent.

Do you agree?

In a round about way. I'd be satisfied with a Seraphim lynch or you, as I think I'd get a decent read on the other who isn't lynched. I think you're oversimplifying though.

I have another question for you;

In a D1 situation similar to this you have two main suspects who are about equal probability of being scum in your mind. You're getting a possible power-role read from one if he isn't scum, and a probable vanilla/weak power-role if he isn't scum from the other.

Both have a few votes already. Who do you vote for, and who do you want to claim?

[Sir Tornado]

In a D1 situation similar to this you have two main suspects who are about equal probability of being scum in your mind. You're getting a possible power-role read from one if he isn't scum, and a probable vanilla/weak power-role if he isn't scum from the other.

Both have a few votes already. Who do you vote for, and who do you want to claim?

In that case, I make a case on the person I suspect the most (that would be me for you at the moment) and try to push people to vote that person, instead of just quoting a bunch of people and saying "I agree with what he says, vote X, even though I would prefer Y to be lynched"

In a round about way. I'd be satisfied with a Seraphim lynch or you, as I think I'd get a decent read on the other who isn't lynched. I think you're oversimplifying though.

This is the single most scummiest thing you have said today. In a nutshell, if you are scum, you are saying you get a chance to push 2 mislynches on first two days.

[Hoopla]

In a D1 situation similar to this you have two main suspects who are about equal probability of being scum in your mind. You're getting a possible power-role read from one if he isn't scum, and a probable vanilla/weak power-role if he isn't scum from the other.

Both have a few votes already. Who do you vote for, and who do you want to claim?

In that case, I make a case on the person I suspect the most (that would be me for you at the moment) and try to push people to vote that person, instead of just quoting a bunch of people and saying "I agree with what he says, vote X, even though I would prefer Y to be lynched"

I didn't ask you to reiterate what you've already said in 924.

In a round about way. I'd be satisfied with a Seraphim lynch or you, as I think I'd get a decent read on the other who isn't lynched. I think you're oversimplifying though.

This is the single most scummiest thing you have said today. In a nutshell, if you are scum, you are saying you get a chance to push 2 mislynches on first two days.

Really, that must be a testament to how astute I've been this game (unless of course by today you mean 'today').

Just because I find you slightly scummier doesn't mean Seraphim isn't a good lynch too. Other factors weigh in also. For example, claimed role, helpfulness, activity, power-role possibility...etc doesn't necessarily always relate directly to scumminess, but are factors to consider when lynching.

[Sir Tornado]

I didn't ask you to reiterate what you've already said in 924.

You asked what I would do. I have told you exactly what I would do.

Just because I find you slightly scummier doesn't mean Seraphim isn't a good lynch too. Other factors weigh in also. For example, claimed role, helpfulness, activity, power-role possibility...etc doesn't necessarily always relate directly to scumminess, but are factors to consider when lynching.

Neither of us have claimed anything. Neither of us are giving hints of power roles right now. (note: I am not claiming or denying anything about my role, just saying I haven't given any indication of it yet. This sentence does not point to anything except what it says.)

The rest of your sentence, is just mumbo jumbo which doesn't actually mean anything but makes you look very clever as it doesn't apply here.

[tubby216]

ok here is what i want to know,

based off of his claim and his play why does der hammer deserve a pass?

and what make seraphim so much more scummier than anybody else?

[Xylthixlm]

We're 7 days away from deadline - if you look at the amount of 'prodded, I'll post later', 'catching up now' type posts, and the amount of general inactivity in the game I think trying to organise a lynch prior to the last minute is valid. We're also at a stage of D1 where new, pressing cases are unlikely to surface, and if one does I want to have time to readjust.

I don't want the town to get into a situation where there is 2 days until deadline, our chosen lynch then claims something useful, and then we have to scramble to lynch someone else. This throws the lynch back towards random and gives scum a far easier chance to orchestrate a mislynch.

QFT

And, yeah, this is something that really ticks me off. If you think someone is scum,

vote for them

and try to convince others to do so too. Keeping quiet and just saying "I think X is scum, but I am not voting for him because the wagon died" without trying to push that wagon when we are an entire week away from deadline is just pathetic.

A week is not a long time in this game. Given the deadline, not voting someone you think is scum is entirely rational as town.

[Sir Tornado]

and what make seraphim so much more scummier than anybody else?

He hasn't played much is one reason. His early posts were dodgy too. His vote on Der Hammer looked opportunistic and a bit wrong when he made it. He has been trying to actively avoid posting lately as he's come under pressure. All good reasons to suspect him.

[Sir Tornado]

A week is not a long time in this game. Given the deadline, not voting someone you think is scum is entirely rational as town.

I disagree with this. It gives scum a good excuse to get someone lynched without making a case on that person on D1; and then go back to the person they were trying to set the lynch of originally on D2. A week is a long time in mafia game.

[Hoopla]

Just because I find you slightly scummier doesn't mean Seraphim isn't a good lynch too. Other factors weigh in also. For example, claimed role, helpfulness, activity, power-role possibility...etc doesn't necessarily always relate directly to scumminess, but are factors to consider when lynching.

Neither of us have claimed anything. Neither of us are giving hints of power roles right now. (note: I am not claiming or denying anything about my role, just saying I haven't given any indication of it yet. This sentence does not point to anything except what it says.)

The rest of your sentence, is just mumbo jumbo which doesn't actually mean anything but makes you look very clever as it doesn't apply here.

Do you base all your decisions and votes solely on scumminess?

[militant]

I just got back from holiday, I will re read in the morning and post then.

[Sir Tornado]

Do you base all your decisions and votes solely on scumminess?

That's a silly question if you have read my posts; especially the ones about Puta Puta and later Der Hammer when he first claimed. Seraphim hasn't claimed yet. There is nothing to go by. And, you are trying to distort the situation on that front in your post 932 by hinting there is.

[Hoopla]

Do you base all your decisions and votes solely on scumminess?

That's a silly question if you have read my posts; especially the ones about Puta Puta and later Der Hammer when he first claimed. Seraphim hasn't claimed yet. There is nothing to go by. And, you are trying to distort the situation on that front in your post 932 by hinting there is.

No, your main point which I'm trying to satisfy is me switching from you to Seraphim - despite you appearing scummier to me.

I'm trying to show you that other factors can influence decisions outside of scumminess, because you seem to be hung up on me switching To Seraphim. The factors I listed were mere examples of what can trump scumminess in varying situations.

[Sir Tornado]

We'll continue this later. I get this urge to burst firecrackers right now.

[tubby216]

and what make seraphim so much more scummier than anybody else?

He hasn't played much is one reason. His early posts were dodgy too. His vote on Der Hammer looked opportunistic and a bit wrong when he made it. He has been trying to actively avoid posting lately as he's come under pressure. All good reasons to suspect him.

but as to the first part of my question, why does der hammer get a pass?? because in my etyes he has done exactly what you are accusing seraphim of but in addition he claimed miller

[Xylthixlm]

A week is not a long time in this game. Given the deadline, not voting someone you think is scum is entirely rational as town.

I disagree with this. It gives scum a good excuse to get someone lynched without making a case on that person on D1; and then go back to the person they were trying to set the lynch of originally on D2. A week is a long time in mafia game.

How long does it take to convince the majority of the town that someone should be lynched, have them claim a power role, and then convince the majority of the town that a

second

person should be lynched? Do you think all that can be done in orderly fashion in a week? If we take four days to decide on the first candidate and then they claim power, do you think we can get a good second candidate in the last three days? What about five and two?

[magisterrain]

hello everyone.
whew, there are quite a few pages to read in this game! it may take me a few days to get completely caught up, but ill give it my best

Be cool like me and start posting without reading the whole thread.

yeah, im gonna have to. 38 pgs is just ridiculous for it to still be day1. a lot of rambling and not much progress being made. everyone just casting suspicion everywhere.

so, can someone briefly state the case against derhammer?
i get a pretty strong town vibe from hoopla on this page.
ill have to start looking at individual peoples comments throughout the thread and see who looks scummy

[Xylthixlm]

Der Hammer lurks for a while, then suddenly claims miller, votes himself and asks to be lynched, then when he's not immediately lynched he unvotes himself and starts attacking the people who voted him.

[magisterrain]

lets see, how about seraphim.
anyone want to summarize the case?

sorry to be lazy, but im in some other games and this one is long. i am slowly catching up (page 10) but it will probably be a while before i read this whole game.

[Seraphim]

To answer your question, I'm not voting myself because that's not smart in the slightest.

You may be scum, but you have a sense of humour

I would also like to know why you want me lynched so badly. I'm not sure where you posted your case against me.

I think I have posted my case against you on my first "reading post", but I will be happy to repeat it.

- Your reason for jumping in the DerHammer wagon is scummy - you voted him because you though his play was "bad play".

- Your behavior from page 1-3 is also scummy. You jumped in an early bandwagon - which isn't bad at all - but then you got touchy when someone called you on it. And then when pressioned by BM, you backtracked and unvoted.

- After that, all you did was pipe in every now and then to vote a random lurker (putaputa, then tubby (2 posts later), then puta puta again, then K7).


If you think lynching you is a bad idea, you can help it by telling my your general impressions on other players - something other than "so and so is a lurker, let's lynch him".

========

SirT:

So you defended Puta for his claim, but now you don't believe his claim anymore? If you believed his claim then, why do you think I have to confirm/deny it now?

Also, if the claim made you unvote puta, what was the reason you were voting him in the first place? Lack of content? I guess I cannot be accused of that - what I think about the game now is quite in the clear. Does any of my current opinions makes you think I'm scum/a good lynch?

Here's the post with the case in it.

[Sir Tornado]

How long does it take to convince the majority of the town that someone should be lynched, have them claim a power role, and then convince the majority of the town that a second person should be lynched? Do you think all that can be done in orderly fashion in a week? If we take four days to decide on the first candidate and then they claim power, do you think we can get a good second candidate in the last three days? What about five and two?

Why not two weeks? how about one and a half week or two and a half weeks?

Hoopla has never made a case against me today. He's just saying I am his no 1 suspect without allowing me to defend myself. And, he's voting Seraphim at the same time. Tell me, is this behaviour acceptable? And, he's saying that he thinks either Seraphim and me are scum; although not together. So, if Seraphim comes up town, that gives him the license to attack me tomorrow saying that I was his number one suspect all along.

I asked him to make a case against me twice yesterday (RL yesterday) -- he told me to stop repeating myself after the second time; and he still refuses to heed my request. If I am his main suspect, let's hear why.

In his 665, he agrees with OGML's 549 but then adds:

I think OGML has a good case on Sir T, however, the thing that irks me is that the weight of the case appears in posts 400+, well after the initial vote for Sir T by OGML.

After that, he makes absolutely no mention of his suspicion towards me,

not even

when he actually votes me; until the point he unvotes me and votes Seraphim.

So, this begs a question, why am I his main suspect in this game, based on a case -- which isn't his -- which he thinks is irksome in some aspects; which is based on me setting up the lynch of the person he thinks is second scummiest in the game? Isn't this stretching credulity?

And, Xyl, I want to know your own thoughts on OGML's 549.

OGML is needs to respond to this post. I know he is online quite a bit due to him being in scumchat often. Also, to Hoopla's criticism (quoted above) to his 549.