Mini 167 - Les Miserables Mafia. Game over!

[EmpTyger]

This is my first time playing a game in a non-newbie thread, so I apologize if anything I say seems blindingly obvious.

First of all who here has read the book/seen the play?

I think we have a 2 person mafia. A 3 person mafia would potentially make a mislynch on the first day fatal. This means that the town is slightly stronger in a newbie game, even though it starts at night: we begin day one with 2 mafia and 6 innocents, as opposed to 2 and 5. So I think the town might be further handicapped. Does anyone have any experience in 9 person games?

I was wondering whether having everyone claim their characters made any sense, because working from the main characters there seemed to be a small number of main roles (eg: Valjean, Cosette, Marius). However, since Seol had a relatively minor character, that doesn’t seem the best plan. Mafia could easily claim relatively minor roles like Grantaire, and we’d be unable to tell who they were. And there’s a great risk that any cops and doctors would be easy for the mafia to identify from their characters.

Is there any reason not to have a cop come forwards if they think they’ve found someone who is mafia? Conversely, is there any reason to have a cop come forwards if they haven’t?

Random

Vote: LoudmouthLee

. Since it seems like we’re working up from the bottom of the list...

[EmpTyger]

Could everyone just indicate whether they have or have not read the book/seen the play? And how familiar they are? For example, is there anyone who doesn’t know who Grantaire is? If we're analyzing the nature of the character of Javert, it would help to know everyone's background.
Myself: read and seen, multiple times.

About Javert: Unless the characters were assigned to roles randomly, I don’t see who would be in a mafia with Javert. Perhaps he’d a serial killer, but it doesn’t make sense to have a serial killer in a game this size. I agree with MeMe: a Therardier-based mafia seems more likely.

Is there a good way to check whether a cop found mafia last night? In newbie 85 everyone posted one of {“If I am the cop, I did not find mafia last night” / “I found a mafia”}. Of course, given what happened in that game, that might not be the best precedent...


LML:
You seem to be a bit “eager” to preemptively discredit a likely cop. Not that Javert would necessarily be reliable, but there’s a huge difference between insane and evil, and I don’t see any reason (so far) to label Javert a godfather.


MeMe:

Is there any reason not to have a cop come forwards if they think they’ve found someone who is mafia? Conversely, is there any reason to have a cop come forwards if they haven’t?

Well, in this theme the one

obvious

cop (Javert) may not judge correctly. Although I'd assume Javert to be on the side of the town, I wouldn't trust his judgment completely. After all, he identified someone incorrectly as being Jean Valjean and pursued Jean Valjean mercilessly despite the fact that JV had changed his ways. He even commits suicide because he realizes that the law, to which he'd dedicated his life, isn't always just.

Hence my phrasing: "if

they think

they’ve found someone who is mafia".
Actually, is there anyone who Javert would think innocent? I mean, even himself? (Which would be a very interesting literary experiment, actually, to have Javert investigate himself. If only it weren’t for the fact that it would waste a turn for the town.)

So, basically, I'm against the cop coming out at this time -- though I might have to reconsider if someone has a cop role and is

not

named Javert.

Isn't this illogical? I mean, if you knew that there were a non-Javert cop, ipso facto they’ve come out, so there isn’t anything to reconsider. Could you at the least elaborate on why?

[EmpTyger]

It’s hasn’t been 24 hours so it might be too early for lurker prods, but I just had a game in which the town was decimated by lurking [newbie 85], so forgive me if I’m on the overzealous side.

bob and gootentag, neither have you have posted yet, and both of you already have a vote on you. bob, you were also in 85, so you should certainly know better. gootentag, you posted in another thread after this one was unlocked this morning. Any reason why?

Unvote: LoudmouthLee
Vote: gootentag

MeMe:

Read and seen several times, though I'm not at all sure why this would matter. The mod provided a link to needed information in the sign-up queue, so I'm pretty sure even someone totally ignorant of the story would have adequate claiming potential (though I've not checked the link myself).

Perhaps I should have read the queue thread, especially since it gives an answer for most players.
<checks links> Actually, I *hope* everyone's already read the book; those have an awful lot of spoilers. The cliffsnotes link does seem like a likely character bank, btw. I’d ask whether anyone’s character isn’t on the list, but that seems like it would run afoul of "strategizing against the setup". Eh, perhaps I am metagaming too much, although I guess I see it like your speculating on the translation between character and role in the case of Javert. Part of the game. <shrug> Not that I think that a mass claim is a particularly good idea, but I think all possibilities should be considered before dismissed, no matter why we dismiss them.

I’d rather wait until hearing everyone’s answer before answering your "why would this matter" question, if that’s alright? It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I might as well wait. I think it’s just bob and gootentag’s status which are uncertain, so after they indicate.

EmpTyger -- I'm not sure if you've actually got a question about the second quote attributed to me in your last post...it may have been worded sloppily but I think the meaning should be clear. I'll attempt to clarify, regardless.<snip>

In [10] you said you weren’t sure whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, but would reconsider if someone was a non-Javert cop. I was pointing out if someone came forward then there is no longer anything to consider- the non-Javert cop has already come forward! So it seemed you left it ambiguous whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, so I asked for clarification. Which you kind of did in [20], although you still are hedging.

1) sanity is always in question (unless the role specifically states sanity)<snip>

Pardon my inexperience, because I feel silly for bringing up something that seems very obvious. But, I mean, wouldn’t it defeat the purpose of insanity for the role to specifically say so?

I’m getting a bit suspicious of you, but as mentioned above I’d rather hear from everyone before placing votes for people based on their participating.

Just noticed something else:

vote: gootentag

<snip>

This wasn’t explicitly labeled as random. Was it?

[EmpTyger]

MeMe:
Talk about nitpicking at words... (and yes, that’s deliberately ironic). I feel that you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing- you are avoiding the points I raised by flinging any nitpick and accusation you could find back at me.

Eh, perhaps I am metagaming too much, although I guess I see it like your speculating on the translation between character and role in the case of Javert. Part of the game.

Let me remind you that I was responding to

your

idea about the possibility of the cop coming forward.

I made a distinction since I thought that you just established, and it was generally agreed, that it would be more fun (among other reasons) to not take advantage of the setup. So I distinguished between discussing the merits of a cop coming forward (independent of setup) which I had brought up, and analyzing likely aspects of special characters and roles (dependent on setup) which you had brought up.

Really, this isn’t even an important point, but if you’re going to pick out a sentence to make my motives seem nefarious, I feel I should show that that wasn’t the case. And aesthetics of the relative levels of fun aside, it seems suspicious to me to advocate discarding a potential strategy without considering whether it would be good or bad. Limiting the town’s options doesn’t seem like it helps the town.

I’d rather wait until hearing everyone’s answer before answering your "why would this matter" question, if that’s alright?

I don't mind waiting -- but for someone doing a lot of heavy questioning, it's a bit odd that you seem to be avoiding answering one.

Yes, I’m not answering it- for the purpose of not influencing the responses of those who haven’t yet responded- which I would hardly call odd. But I’m hardly avoiding it. I said exactly when I would answer it. I’ll take your “I don’t mind waiting” at face value and try to ignore the insinuations.

Honestly, my reason for waiting isn’t a big deal, and I feel that when I do finally say it, the reaction is going to be “so why’d you make a big deal about not saying it earlier?”.

In [10] you said you weren’t sure whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, but would reconsider if someone was a non-Javert cop. I was pointing out if someone came forward then there is no longer anything to consider- the non-Javert cop has already come forward! So it seemed you left it ambiguous whether a non-Javert cop should come forward, so I asked for clarification. Which you kind of did in [20], although you still are hedging.

Well your explanation here is exactly what I thought it was...nitpicking at my words. There's no way you can honestly say that I'm "hedging," I went out of my way to be perfectly clear about what my meaning was. Or are you still confused? Be specific about your allegation of "hedging" -- if you can't, I'll have to wonder why you're trying so hard to make me look less than forthcoming.

I almost think I better claim confusion, because I can’t complete figure out what you’re talking about.

By “hedging” I meant that you could be interpreted as meaning that you were in favor of a non-Javert cop claiming just as easily as that you were against a non-Javert cop claiming. I can’t find anyplace where you are less ambiguous on this matter, much less “out of [your] way to be perfectly clear”. Regarding a non-Javert cop, you have [10], which I thought I already explained didn’t make any logical sense; and you have [20], in which you say you are “generally…against” but “it might be a decent idea”. What am I missing?

Now, is that specific enough? I’m not “trying so hard to make [you] look less than forthcoming”. I’m trying to figure out why you aren’t.

1) sanity is always in question (unless the role specifically states sanity)<snip>

Pardon my inexperience, because I feel silly for bringing up something that seems very obvious. But, I mean, wouldn’t it defeat the purpose of insanity for the role to specifically say so?

I'll pardon your inexperience, but your tone is beginning to feel less innocently inquisitive and more accusatory. Sanity is always in question unless the role specifically states sanity. The only specificity I've ever seen in a cop role is "you are guaranteed sane" or the like. Did you really think I was suggesting that a role might say "you are paranoid" or "you are reverse"? And why didn't you consider it from the "you are sane" angle rather than the ridiculous "you are insane" one? Again, it feels as though you're working hard to make me look bad, but you're having to bend over backward to do so.

You’re the one who just implied I was “[making you] look less than forthcoming”, so watch the accusations of being accusatory, hm?

I didn’t see any point to sanity if it’s the mod gives out that information explicitly, which was what you were implying. So I questioned you about something else you seemed to be saying which made no sense. And btw, I afterwards ran a forum search and found less than 5 games that used a guaranteed sane cop. Moreover, to quote the wiki page, “When a Moderator uses these roles [sanities], the player receiving the role is only told his/her role is Cop.” So, I don’t think it’s ridiculous that I never heard of “guaranteed sanity”.

As for “Again, it feels as though you're working hard to make me look bad, but you're having to bend over backward to do so.”: May I say, likewise? I feel I’m identifying points that seem suspicious, and probing to see why, but rather than address them, you bend over backwards to accuse me of framing you.

vote: gootentag

<snip>

This wasn’t explicitly labeled as random. Was it?

What's the purpose of asking "was it"? You can see perfectly well that it wasn't.

Animal, vegetable, or mineral? Should I ask the obvious follow-up, or am I to assume that there’s a reason you’re not giving a reason? Do you want me to ask what your reason was for not voting randomly, or shall I merely inquire about your reason for not yet giving a reason? Perhaps I should ask what’s the purpose of asking “what’s the purpose of asking ‘was it’?”?

To answer your question: in the 2 games I’ve played there have been votes that seem to be random which weren’t marked as such, and in at least one case there was an additional reason. And, you know, I kind of thought the reason why Person A voted for Person B might possibly turn out to be relevant to a game of mafia, just maybe

[Please forgive that burst of sarcasm. I hardly expected to regret not tacking on an “If not, then what?” to a simple question.]


LML:

<snip>

Vote: EmpTyger

Rationale:

Point 1- He asked the initial question about everyone's knowledge of Les Mis. If ET is mafia, then he would likely be able to ascertain his claim chances if he knows the knowledge base of his opponents. Very.. questionable.

Especially after we see post 22:

I’d rather wait until hearing everyone’s answer before answering your "why would this matter" question, if that’s alright? It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I might as well wait. I think it’s just bob and gootentag’s status which are uncertain, so after they indicate.

See above in response to MeMe. But also, I don’t really understand this reason for suspecting me. Numerous people have already come forward to claim familiarity with the book, so if I were a mafia trying to fabricate a claim, then how do what the last 2 have to say affect anything? I really think I’m missing something in your accusation.

Point 2- ET seems to have a "cop fear", especially one about a sane cop. Javert might have been "discredited" somewhat, but Javert (a very likely role) is still a cop.

Spot me if I made a mistake. I'll be happy to correct.

I’m not quite sure what you’re basing my perception of a “cop fear” on, so I’m not quite sure whether you’ve “made a mistake”. Honestly, I’ve never heard the term “cop fear” before. So I guess I should ask you to clarify this too?

[EmpTyger]

gootentag, you posted just as I was finishing up mine, and I'm a bit too tired to reply now. However, since it was a lurker vote, I'll

unvote: gootentag

and lurker

vote: Changling bob

in the meantime.

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: Changling bob

Everyone’s posted at least once. I’m also going to wait before placing a new vote.
I don’t mean to be too excessive in terms of prodding- I mean, I have 2 papers due Friday so my own posting will most likely decrease towards the end of the week- but I wanted the game to begin with activity being strongly encouraged.

Read and seen several times, though I'm not at all sure why this would matter.

As I warned, the reason was very minor. I figured there could be a slight chance that mafia could claim ignorance of the book to justify not making what would otherwise be an obvious conclusion. Given the links offered by the mod, it became almost completely moot, but I so no reason not to have such information declared, especially since most already had. I didn’t reveal the reason when asked because it would completely defeat the already diminished purpose of asking. In retrospect, it might not be particularly useful, but I still don’t see how it might have been harmful.

I’ve never played in a themed setup, but I’m having trouble getting the numbers to work for multiple killing groups. Maybe 2 serial killers and no mafia? The mod’s first post, “Players dead, ill, maimed, on the run or otherwise incarcerated:” does seem to imply multiple ways of death, which would point away from simply 1 mafia. But that just as easily could mean a vigilante. I’m not sure that we are able to determine this at this point, since we don’t know whether we have the number of town roles to balance out multiple killing groups- and we all seem to be agreed that we *shouldn’t* reveal that much about the town just yet.


gootentag:
While it seems Javert could be practically any role, as MeMe pointed out in [14], there’s no reason to spook them, regardless of their role. I suppose the same could be argued about Thenardier, but that’s admittedly a much harder case to make.


MeMe:
Okay about the unlabeled vote. Was not aware that was your style.

[EmpTyger]

[I’m not sure where the line is regarding taking advantage of the setup, but to respond to what vikingfan and bob posted:]

Here’s the worst case math (ie: no protections and no mafia lynchings) for 1 killing group:
Night 1: 1 dies, 8 left.
Day 1: 1 lynched, 7 left.
Night 2: 1 dies, 6 left.
Day 2: 1 lynched, 5 left.
Night 3: 1 dies, 4 left.

That looks like a 2 person mafia: the town has 2 chances to find at least 1 mafia.

The only other possibility I see as reasonable is 2 SKs. Again, worst case (ie: no protections, no SK cross-targeting or crossfires):
Night 1: 2 die, 7 left.
Day 1: 1 lynched, 6 left.
Night 2: 2 die, 4 left.
Day 2: 1 lynched, 3 left. *
Night 3: 2 die, 1 left.

[* A very fascinating situation, because the town is better off lynching an innocent! If a SK is lynched, the other SK wins easily on Day 3 with there being only 1 other innocent left. But if both SKs are alive on Night 3, then each can only win by killing the other off. If both “succeed”, then Day 3 only the innocent lives and the town wins!]

The worst case is worse than 1 killing group, but if almost any death is prevented, I think it’s as fair- 2 chances to find at least 1 mafia. It would come down to how strong the innocents’ abilities are.

[EmpTyger]

gootentag:
We seem to keep posting simultaneously.

Point, I suppose- we shouldn’t presume any character is (or isn’t) mafia. <shameless>Though I’m sure a good, friendly, fun-loving mod would never, ever, be so devious.</shameless>

<

emphasis

added>
If there are two killing groups, starting with 9 players,

worst case scenario

:
Night 1: 2 players die, 7 left
Day 1: 1 player lynched, 6 left
Night 2: 2 players die, 4 left

By this point, the mafia must surely be in majority, town loses.

You are misanalyzing. Obviously, lynching a mafia and having a double crossfire is not the worst case. Metagaming/strategizing the setup/looking at logistics, but: I don’t think a setup requiring either the day 1 lynch to be correct or the town having to get doubly lucky should be an obvious assumption. Is it "possible"? Well, yes. Is it likely? Who knows. Can we tell? No- so I don’t see any basis for accusing bob of making a mistake.


LML:

<snip>I mean, we have FACTS to go on here, and instead, we're looking at Mafia logistics. As much as their interesting...<snip>

Okay, then. Let’s step away from logistics. I’d like you to further explain your accusation of me.

Point 1 (referring to the numbering in [24])was based upon speculating about my part in a discussion of logistics, which you now seem to think is merely a distraction. Point 2 was based upon the hypothetical nature of Javert, and your assumptions regarding him. Neither seem consistent with this desire to turn the discussion to these non-logistical “FACTS” of yours. Which MeMe beat me to asking you about. And as for the accusation itself, I’m still not sure what this “cop fear” I seem to have is.

While you’re at it, I’d also like to hear your response is to this query, which you’ve ignored:

<snip>Any chance on elaborating on (a) what you know about who the scum are or (b) how you know who the scum are? The obvious answer to (b) is that you are scum, but I don't think anyone would be that stupid. Unless you're cuning enough to know that we're going to think that no-one's that stupid.<snip>

Posts 37-39 all seemed to be tail-chasing right about now<snip>

Tangential question: Why are you highlighting [37-39] as tail-chasing? Specifically, what made the content of vikingfan’s [36] so different that you didn’t include it, as you easily could have?

And we’re not lynching based upon it, so I don’t see why the alarmist attitude over mere discussion. (I’d argue that it enables it to give us a better idea of how many “wrong moves” we might have, but that doesn’t really matter.) And I happen to think that there is some factual data being generated by the discussion of logistics...

I'd like EmpTyper to explain his quip here (which I felt never got a good answer) <snip> Why was the answer to this necessary, even after the importance had been "downplayed"?

Reposting my response:

<snip>As I warned, the reason was very minor. I figured there could be a slight chance that mafia could claim ignorance of the book to justify not making what would otherwise be an obvious conclusion. Given the links offered by the mod, it became almost completely moot, but I so no reason not to have such information declared, especially since most already had. I didn’t reveal the reason when asked because it would completely defeat the already diminished purpose of asking. In retrospect, it might not be particularly useful, but I still don’t see how it might have been harmful.<snip>

It seemed to me that you were looking to check everyone's familiarity with the plot in order to figure out the complexity of a future claim.<snip>

Temporarily assuming this is true, why would post [22] have “especially” cemented this?


Pending your replies,

vote: LoudmouthLee

For someone claiming to be dissatisfied with the direction of discussion, I don’t see you helping the town do better- as MeMe pointed out, some of your reasoning is on the very logic you claimed was useless. You made an various statements including an “odd” accusation and have avoided clarifying your rationale. (And you’re voting for someone *I* know is innocent.)

[EmpTyger]

blech Have to run- don't have time to reply to the 3 people who posted meanwhile.

[EmpTyger]

I’m going to risk disobeying the mod by posing the question of how Victor Hugo managed to speak in bold type. With essentially the same vote total (only my vote changed), the bolding was present in [30] but not present in [58]. Aelyn mentioned something in the queue thread about an unusual rule...


Mr Stoofer:
Let me start by saying that I myself would hate a newbie claim as a defense. That’s why I don’t mention it to excuse play mistakes, but to explain why I’m asking questions or not possessing knowledge of styles concepts others seem to hold as well-established.

First, he was rather rather keen to find out everyone's familiarity with the book. He pressed everyone to reveal the level of their knowledge in post 7 and then repeated his request in post 17:
<snip>
This looks to me like he was trying to see how far he could get away with with false roleclaims etc.

I’m not sure what else to say about this. I conducted the survey because I thought it limited the options of the mafia, who could otherwise feign unfamiliarity with the books. And I saw it being of no cost to the town. The only possible cost that’s been insinuated is that I could use potential knowledge the town’s ignorance to fake a claim. Well, fine. Temporarily assume that I’m mafia. You think I hoped to find the other 7 people (less any mafia partners) in a Les Mis. themed game unfamiliar with the book? This so ridiculous I have trouble believing it, but that’s been the only suggestion for the supposedly nefarious plot I might have concocted.

Secondly, and connected to the first point, he said this in post 7:

I was wondering whether having everyone claim their characters made any sense, because working from the main characters there seemed to be a small number of main roles (eg: Valjean, Cosette, Marius). However, since Seol had a relatively minor character, that doesn’t seem the best plan. Mafia could easily claim relatively minor roles like Grantaire, and we’d be unable to tell who they were. And there’s a great risk that any cops and doctors would be easy for the mafia to identify from their characters.

This read to me as though he was delibeately laying the ground for a false claim to a minor character.

I’m not sure how you’re reading a giveaway into my role. To explain what *I* thought I was doing:
The first thing I did when I joined the game was brainstormed which characters might be in a Les Mis. setup, and got a number around 9 using main characters. So I wondered about the possibility of a characterclaim, which seemed a potentially winning move. In the first post I made, I thought it worth mentioning that reasoning, in case someone had any further thoughts on how to adapt such a plan to deal with the disadvantages I realized it had. As I didn’t know then but have since been repeatedly informed, this was frowned upon as “breaking the setup”.

Thirdly, he has twice suggested that the cop should claim:

Is there any reason not to have a cop come forwards if they think they’ve found someone who is mafia?

Is there a good way to check whether a cop found mafia last night? In newbie 85 everyone posted one of {“If I am the cop, I did not find mafia last night” / “I found a mafia”}. Of course, given what happened in that game, that might not be the best precedent...

In [7] I posed a question. (Incidentally, context? By your logic in my very next line I was suggesting that the cop should not claim.) In the next 10 posts there was an ambiguous response from MeMe. So while probing her reply I asked a somewhat different question in [17]. Afterwards I received a few variations on “no” and nothing positive, so I dropped the matter.

And forgive a question that seems ridiculous even to me: How is thinking it might be good for a cop to come forward if they found a mafia a sign of suspicion? I would think it’s more suspicious that arguing that a cop who discovered mafia should stay hidden. Not to argue a conceded point, but we still have a doctor [most likely- and even if we don’t, the mafia can’t know that, so they risk wasting a round attempting to kill a protected cop]. It eliminates the risk of losing information by a cop dying overnight. Moreover, there is a difference between asking a cop to claim and discussing whether it is beneficial for them to do so. The first is irreversible, the second is just discussion.

This next accusation, forgive my saying so, is just ridiculous.

Fourthly, he has twice suggested that there might not be any mafia at all.

I’ve never played in a themed setup, but I’m having trouble getting the numbers to work for multiple killing groups. Maybe 2 serial killers and no mafia? The mod’s first post, “Players dead, ill, maimed, on the run or otherwise incarcerated:” does seem to imply multiple ways of death, which would point away from simply 1 mafia.

And he raised the same possibility in post 38.<snip>

Did you read the entire sentence containing the words “no mafia”? 2 SKs would effectively be 2 1 person mafias. It’s a possibility, just as much as 1 2 person mafia. Do I think 2 SKs is more likely? No, but it is a possibility. As for discussing such possibilities, let me refresh your memory:

Also, what do people think about killing groups? There was only one death last night, but that could have been due to a doc or roleblocker or double targetting. Is it possible that we have an SK in a group this small?

Did you think that [38] just might be part of the discussion that began after the question that *you* asked in [32]? You wanted to know if it were possible. I was showing how it might be. Therefore I am mafia???

Incidentally, can’t that accusation be turned around? Wouldn’t someone who’s dismissing possibilities of multiple killing groups be trying to hide that they are a SK?


Finally,

Vote: the next person to speculate as to the role which the mod has assigned to any character from the book.

Even if such speculation is useless, what is the harm? It’s not like other topics aren’t being discussed. Having people talk about the game creates data that can later be analyzed. If someone does post only useless speculation, well, there’s nothing to stop you from later on pointing out such suspicious behavior.
But now allow me to speculate. Maybe you don’t want attention called to specific behavior. Maybe you’re using that accusation to communicate a warning to a partner...

[EmpTyger]

Sorry for the absense; having a busy week. Will post something with content tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

[Warning: this is going to be on the harsh side.]
Okay, bob and I said we were going to be busy. At absolute most 3 of you are mafia/SKs. So, the rest of you: What are your excuses for lurking? Are you trying to get a deadline imposed?

In 48 hours only 1 person has posted- and that was me apologizing for my absense [sic]!

In that time:
gootentag, you’ve posted once in another thread.
Krishna, you posted twice today in another thread.
LML, you’ve posted numerous times in other threads.
MeMe, you’ve posted multiple times per day in other threads.
Stoofer, you posted three times in another thread (plus the queue).
vikingfan, you’ve posted multiple times per day in other threads.

And that’s only considering the past 2 days. Some of you have been barely participating prior.

I know I overstuff my posts with content, but couldn’t you do *anything* without me? Is there some pressing matter requiring me or bob that I’ve missed?

I’d post something else, but this to me is more suspicious than any post analysis I might do. And yet clearly some of the lurking must be being committed by innocents! Don’t you realize you’re enabling mafia to get away with lurking?! Participate!

[EmpTyger]

LML:

<snip>EmpTyger and LoudmouthLee have a vendetta going at present, so their votes are on each other.<snip>

(It’s a shame that “catfight” was always used with you and MeMe. I would have liked the feline vocabulary.)

To better explain my vote: After hearing from others, I was no longer thinking you were most suspicious. But I don’t really like “rewarding” evasion with an unvote, especially with a noncritical voting situation that allows for more flexibility in casting. And this echoes an incident in Newbie 85, in which similar questions, when left unresolved, led to disastrous ending for the town. So now I’m back to thinking you’re the most suspicious.

You don’t want to further explain your vote on me? Fine, so be it. But bob posted 2 questions for you in [29]. You’ve ignored them. I reminded you of them in [51]. bob again in [61]. You don’t reply- even though you’re active in other games- until prodded, at which point you claim you have nothing to say.


Krishna:

<snip>less 'post-happy' than, say, <snip> EmpTyger (who is a Tyger, and would therefore be noticed just about anywhere!). <ducks> <snip>

I had an even worse response to your humor, but I decided against making the joke. I figured the joke was so bad everyone would want to lynch me for it, and I just didn’t want to get voted out over some lame “<ducks>” humor. ::rimshot::

But seriously, folks...

<snip>a couple of good reasons for my relatively short posts.

1) I am afraid of getting targeted by the Mafia too early. I haven't lasted longer than Day 2 in any game so far (1st game -- everyone lost in Day 2, 2nd game, I got night-killed on Night 1!), so I'd really rather not give them any reasons to slit my throat in the night (or perhaps garotte me, given this setting?) <smile>

The mafia’s going to target someone at night. No amount of silence will prevent that. This is a team game: (all things being equal) you are hurt the same amount regardless of whether you die or another innocent dies. Nor is it just mafia- you don’t want to be “targeted” by the town. Silence helps the mafia; someone trying to be silent is suspicious. At best, you give the mafia an excuse to remain silent. At worst, you draw the town’s suspicions onto yourself, and they kill you.

2) I'm not quite sure I'm following the level of discussion that's being bandied about on this board, to put it simply. There's been an amazing amount of posts by only a few people, as I see it, each nitpicking on tiny points made by each other.<snip>

Then ask about it. If something seems to not make sense to you, say so. It might be clarified. Or it might not be you- someone might be deliberately saying something that doesn’t make sense. The town isn’t telepathic. We can’t tell what your thinking unless you speak.

Think of it this way: what happens if everyone plays how you’re playing? Is there any chance for the town?


gootentag:
I clicked “find all posts” on the profile- a simple check that can quickly confirm if someone is lurking. Do I need to explain why lurking is bad? [well, evidently- see above] If someone’s posting regularly in other games, but is content to let silence reign here, I think that means something. Yet you’re hardly the worst offender. So I’m wondering why you’re finding my investigation “unnerving”...
Temporarily assuming MeMe is onto something with her cryptic voting, might you be protecting a partner, perhaps?

And not that it’s relevant at this point, but to answer your question from [66]:

Montparnasse, Claquesous, Gueulemer, and Babet

The four chiefs of the Paris underworld, occasionally associated with Thénardier.

They ally with the Thenardiers in a scheme to rob a disguised Valjean. That showdown is my favorite scene in the book, and I am quite loath to spoil it by explaining further. Of the four, the first 2 are most “interesting”: Claquesous was a master of disguise who infiltrated the revolutionaries but was shot by Enjolras for disobediance. Valjean attempted to “pay it forward” to Montparnasse, but he was (at least with respect to Montparnasse) unsuccessful. I think Montparnasse has a thing with Eponine or Azelma, but can’t remember for sure.


vikingfan:
4 posts, all short. To summarize:
[16] Random vote on MeMe + “Never try to outguess the mod.”
[19] Level of Les Mis. familiarity
[36] Attempt at outguessing the mod
[54] “I still lean towards the thinking of not overguessing” + attempt at outguessing the mod.

I’m not as anti-speculation as others in this game, but speculation by itself does not count as contributing. Honestly, my biggest surprise is that MeMe missed you in [62] when she noted Krishna and gootentag had been keeping low profiles.

[EmpTyger]

I should probably apologize for [70]; I was a bit frustrated. I was surprised to see no one had posted in my absence, so I was trying to collectively chastise the whole town, for both lurking and allowing lurking to occur.
MeMe, gootentag, yes, you both did contribute relatively recently in the thread, but because there had been 48 hours of silence I decided to be comprehensive. However, I did not mean to imply that everyone’s level of noncontribution was comparable.

It sounds like we’re not getting a deadline, so I don’t see any point in lurking prodding. People can speak up or be replaced all by themselves.


LML:
I thought a bit about giving you the benefit of the doubt by dropping the matter, but figured that if you were telling the truth the damage was already done.

Could you ever think, Tyger, that I *do not* want to talk about my role? There's a very REAL reason for this.<snip>

I’m still not telepathic. I don’t know which “reason” fits your case. Maybe you’re an obvious doctor. Maybe you’re a suspicious looking innocent. Maybe you’re mafia without any idea for a claim.

Why do I lean towards the last possibility? Because with only the knowledge of your role you somehow started off with one conclusion, and later your role gave you the exact opposite conclusion. The best explanation I can think of for this discrepancy is that it has nothing to do with your at all- you’re it up as you hear others post. And if you’re not going to offer any alternative explanation, what else am I supposed to think?

And even if you didn’t want to talk about your role, there were a lot of other points brought in [51] that you also ignored. And temporarily assuming you’re correct, why drop out of the game for 4 days? Do you seriously think that I would be the only antitown?

However, it’s pointless to ask me to force you to roleclaim. I hardly can by myself, and it’s silly to try when nearly everyone else is either lurking or voting me. If the town is going to try to bandwagon someone, then I don’t see the town having the same suspicion of you. Maybe if we get replacements, but I doubt it, and that’s going to change the dynamic of the game anyhow. The only other player who the town seems like they might go for instead of me is like gootentag, but it seems counterproductive to antagonize one of the few nonlurkers not already voting for me. Perhaps vikingfan- whose level of participation I’ve remarked upon in [75], and who’s already voting for me anyhow- but I don’t really feel like haphazardly casting a vote and hoping suspicion follows. So I’m going to abandon strategy and just leave my vote where it is- on who I still think is most suspicious.


MeMe:
I, um, actually wasn’t aware of the “view all posts by” feature. I’d been going into profiles and using “find all posts by”. Mea culpa on “back tomorrow”- thanks for the criticism.

<snip>EmpTyger -- I also find your terming my vote on gootentag as "cryptic" rather odd as I'd just explained my reasons for not caring to switch at this point. And you playing at being game savior just makes me giggle. I thought you might have something specific to share and was happily waiting for that. Next time just say "back tomorrow" rather than making it sound like you had something ready to say. Regardless, I'd been one of the last people to contribute and probably wouldn't have had reason to stick a post up unless someone else added content first.<snip>

I’m not sure what to make of your style, and asking you for clarification has seemed counterproductive. However, I’ve thought about it and I think I should just say that I might have made a mistake in saying that. Honestly, every time I think I’ve figured out the intention and meaning of your second sentence above I doubt my conclusion.

The point with vikingfan seemed just odd enough to mention. I did realize there were quite a few likelier explanations ahead of a MeMe-vikingfan mafia. Until the hypothetical revealing of vikingfan as mafia, I’m accepting your explanation.


Mr Stoofer:
In rereading the thread I noticed something I missed earlier:

<snip>

(a)

Just to clarify my 2nd point, I thought that it was suspicious that you were saying that the mod has obviously chosen to include minor characters. Normally it is dangerous to make a false claim a minor character because (although unlikely to be anyone else's character in the game) the town might not believe the claim. So your post 7 seemed to me to be preparing the ground for such a claim.<snip>

If it wasn’t clear, in [7] I was purely referencing Seol’s character, Grantaire. I did not intend that to be a statement either way about my own character.

[EmpTyger]

LML:
I’m not buying it either, because *you* brought up your role first, completely unprompted:

Let me first say that after some serious thought, I will withdraw my idea about Javert being scum. After looking at MY role, I can assume who I think the scum are. Javert would not be one of them.

If you didn’t want attention brought upon it, why invite discussion?

I wish the majority of you already knew how I played Mafia. You'd be able to pick up on my cues.

Not really an excuse- you knew who’d be reading when you made your posts. Out of curiosity, though, who belongs to this minority of “played with LML before”? Can any of them comment on this matter?


bob:
I’m not ready to assume it’s as simple as “scum or doc”, but I agree with your general point.


vikingfan:
If LML ever can clear his matter up, I’m going to be switching my vote to you awfully quickly. To put it another way: “I'd consider a vote for vikingfan in future, though.”


gootentag:
Not as bad as vikingfan, but you still seem to be on the wrong side of the lurking line.

[EmpTyger]

I’m willing to press vikingfan, but I would like to state I’m unsatisfied with LML’s explanations. However, since suspicions on vikingfan seem more unanimous:

Unvote: LoudmouthLee
Vote: vikingfan

(Well, nearly unanimous- I can’t find anywhere where LML or gootentag note him as being suspicious...)


LML:
I’m having an awful hard time accepting as a valid excuse what is effectively “I’m acting suspicious deliberately, so don’t treat me suspiciously.”.

Temporarily assuming you are telling the complete truth, I can’t see how revealing the knowledge of who’s familiar with your style would cheapen the power of your role. So could you at least say who you’ve played with before?

[EmpTyger]

<snip>at least 2 people can verify me.

I can’t see any situation where this works. As I pointed out earlier, 5 people have been suspicious of you, leaving only LML and gootentag. And LML just came forward with an FoS.

You’re at 4 votes, I believe, so:

Unvote: vikingfan

Claim fully.

[EmpTyger]

Nevermind. I posted too quickly because I thought vikingfan was one away from a lynch, but he's only at 3. Disregard most of my last post.

vote: vikingfan

[EmpTyger]

I have one problem with vikingfan’s claim: I don’t see anyone who could be his “Enjolras”. {Krishna, Stoofer, Tyger voted; LML FoSed; MeMe and bob voiced suspicions; gootentag denied a way to verify.} I’ve never played a game with masons, but it doesn’t seem like there’d be any reason for a mason to say that they think a fellow mason suspicious. Is there some strategy I’m missing?

But I don’t see any reason for Enjolras (or Cosette or Eponine) to forward yet.


MeMe:

I prefer that Enjolras not be revealed. There are other suspects to pursue without pushing more information out of viking.

If vikingfan is telling the complete truth, Enjolras might be revealed already...

I don’t think to establish vikingfan’s claim is a good reason to have Enjolras come forward. Especially since I’m not sure I’d exonerate Marius if Enjolras existed. It wouldn’t fit flavor at all, but from a “don’t outguess the mod” standpoint, a Marius-Enjolras mafia pairing is a possibility.


gootentag:
By denying characters/roles you aren’t, you’re increasing the chances of the mafia guessing correctly. Assuming that you’re not mafia yourself.


LML:
Eh, honestly, I don’t feel like digging through archives, so I’m just going to drop this for now.

[EmpTyger]

Pardon my metagaming:
If the mason claims are true, it seems like it makes the town too strong. I can’t see the basic 2 person mafia that was hypothesized as enough of a balance against the town. (I mean, in newbie games, 2 person mafia balances at most cop + doctor + effectively 4 innocents. It seems like we have a stronger town than that.) But a 3 person mafia seems like it makes the game too dependent on what happens Day 1. So, still under the assumption that vikingfan-bob aren’t a 2 person mafia themselves, the only setup I can see as possibly working at this point is one with 2 SKs (aka 2 1 person mafias). In which case, we got lucky Night 1 in some manner.

Why this might matter:
Under the assumption of 1 killing group, I was wondering what happened with a strategy of nolynch + attempted recruitment (+ any cops doing their thing for an added benefit). I I realize I’m making a couple assumptions about roles, but could this work?

It might also matter for determining whether a mass character claim is worthwhile.


bob:

I can also recruit new people into the mason group and/or incite revolution (whatever that might mean) at night.

I can’t see why you would reveal the “incite revolution” ability if it were anti-town, but I’ll admit that I find it slightly ominous. I don’t think you should reveal what it is, though.

Is it time for a mass roleclaim, or should we stay as we are for now? Or should just some people claim, for example Cosette, who presuably has a verifiable role.

I don’t think we should claim halfway- that seems like it gives the mafia the most information. But I’m unsure what would be best, and the town voiced some displeasure with the idea of claiming earlier, so I think I’ll defer if someone else would like to analyze the situation.

Question: Did you recruit vikingfan, or were you initially linked together?


MeMe:

Where is this suspicion that you say bob has voiced?<snip>

<snip>@vikingfan: There's always something to be said about any given discussion. I'm sure you've some opinion on what's been going on other than "don't outguess the mod". You know, on the grounds that that isn't the current topic of discussion, which is now leaning towards "how scummy you are". With the current consensus seeming to be "quite".<snip>

Which I concede in retrospect can be interpreted as merely a prod.

Well, exactly. And, if viking's telling the truth, the only possibility for the Enjolras role is Changling bob, in my opinion -- something I wasn't eager to point out so blatantly. But as you, through this rather large hint, have kind of ruined any possibility of keeping his identity under wraps for those who hadn't yet figured out that the identity could be uncovered through simple deduction...I don't see any reason not to just say it out loud now myself.

I was trying to leave it ambiguous between you and bob- which is why I *didn’t* mention the fact that you clearly couldn’t be Enjolras because of vikingfan’s initial vote on you. But I figured the rest of the facts I listed should have been more than obvious to the mafia, and most I had already mentioned in recent posts, so I saw no harm in pointing them out directly.


vikingfan:
Given how bob’s come forward, I don’t see you two being mafia together.

Unvote: vikingfan.

[EmpTyger]

I don’t see anything suspicious about questioning the mason claim. I personally saw no harm in accepting it for today. If it were true, they would be a powerful tool; if false, then we could lynch as easily tomorrow; and tonight’s events may make the determination easier.

However, I feel I might have made some misassumptions. I now am starting to think that the mason ability as presented seems too powerful to be plausible. Starting off with 2 masons combined with the ability to recruit would have meant that they had a good chance of forming a majority by Day 2. (For that matter, then why wasn’t anyone recruited last night?) Plus they can function as a limited cop. And that’s not getting into the mysterious “incite revolution”. I can’t really believe that all this would fit into the game.

Can someone check my math? Do we have to decide the mason issue today?


Stoofer:

My gut reaction is that vikingfan and CB are not anti-town. The idea of them being anti-town just doesn't work for me, especially since their strategy of claiming to be pro-town masons would be hugely dangerous on Day 1 (the moment one dies, their alignment will be revealed and the other will be lynched).

I’m not really sure this is what happened: bob didn’t come forward until the point where if he didn’t, vikingfan’s claim would be obviously false.

I think LML has a point. I think it surprising that either are still suspicious of vikingfan and CB and more surprising that they are

both

still pursuing them.<snip>

May I turn this around: Why *aren’t* you suspicious that those claiming masons might be lying?


vikingfan:

<snip>As for my alignment, I have already stated that I am pro-town.

Um, can you think of any situation where a player would *not* admit that they are pro-town? Just because you say that you are doesn’t mean anything. I’d think mafia members’ hiding the fact that they’re anti-town would be much more common than masons...

[EmpTyger]

There's a seems to be a slight lull in posting, but because it is Easter weekend I don’t think it's significant. I want to reread the thread before commenting further. (ie: "back tomorrow")

[EmpTyger]

[Aelyn: I think I should have been listed under “Not voting” in [142]? I’m assuming this is just the alleged fallibility of yours...]


Argh-
During the day my mind wanders to the game. The more I think about the mason claim the less I believe it. But I think that regardless of the suspicion it is not worth the risk of lynching one of them today. And this seems to be a general consensus. And I think we can afford to wait and see if the claim is made clearer tomorrow.

It seems that there are 2 others who are generally viewed as suspicious: gootentag and Krishna. gootentag has the 2 votes on him, and both have a collection of FoSs. (I suppose technically I should count myself, since I do have a vote on me; but that seems like a vestige of an abandoned bandwagon. vikingfan?) Most of the attention seems to be because they aren’t being completely accepting of the mason claim- though as that is the position I myself am taking, I don’t think that that is suspicious in and of itself.

Having said that:


gootentag:
You don’t seem to be saying anything *wrong*, but your only contributions feel like you’re only here to merely play devil’s advocate. Which, while still of value, still feels incomplete, like you’re trying to avoid committing to anything. You somehow have 2 votes on you, yet you haven’t even cast a vote yet.

I’m not thrilled to cast a vote for anyone based on any of my current reasonings, but I’ve got to start somewhere. And since it’s already been started on you, I may as well continue there. I can't speak for MeMe's reasoning, and I don't yet agree with LML's, but I think you can at least address my concerns.

Vote: gootentag

Krishna:

To prove that I'm not scum, I would be willing to vote for anyone at all (again, I am unwilling to vote without a good reason to do so, and no one seems overtly Mafia just now, so I want to get everyone's thoughts on the matter -- MeMe and EmpTyger have not yet weighed in on this topic, and I'd like to hear their thoughts as well).

There’s something about this sentiment, the stated willingness to vote for *anybody* to prove something, that feels a bit off. Like there’s too much desperation to appear to seem innocent.

Of course, something no one has yet brought up is that it may also be possible that the Masons ARE our power roles... Unless we have a doctor or cop (and while we might suspect that there is a Javert cop, or maybe a non-Javert cop, no one has mentioned a possible doctor, IMHO). In this case, we'd want to have them around as long as possible...

Um? No one *should* mention a possible doctor... that kind of has a negative effect on their effectiveness/lifespan.


Stoofer:
I know you’re not currently present to clarify, but I’m still a bit puzzled by [126].

<snip>I think LML has a point. I think it surprising that either are still suspicious of vikingfan and CB and more surprising that they are both still pursuing them. FOS: gootentag & LordKrishna with a vote to follow unless anyone can suggest a better candidate.

You give 2 reasons for suspecting gootentag and Krishna. One is that they doubt the mason claims, which I’ve already mentioned seems hardly suspicious. The other is that their pursuit of the masons seemed too opportunistic. But this seems no different than your own post [126], following so close on LML’s accusation.


All:
Now, when rereading the thread, I had an idea that flavorwise was completely ridiculous. Could LML/Cosette be a SK? I realize this is speculatory, but thought it might be crazy enough to mention...
1) LML began the game speculating that Javert was mafia, yet totally reversed himself based on what his role said in [24]. Yet the only information he would have had to base his initial speculation upon was his role.
2) LML discouraged discussion of multiple killing groups in [41], [44].
3) LML was extremely evasive about claiming- but in [119] revealed that he is Cosette unprompted.
4) [metagame] 2 SK setup might balance out claimed strength of masons, especially with weakened cops only able to detect one particular SK (ie: Marius searching for Cosette).


Does anyone know of any precedent for a “booby-trapped ability”? That is, an optional ability possessed by a protown player which has an antitown effect?

[EmpTyger]

vikingfan:
I don’t feel I have information about the “searching for Cosette” ability to give advice. I’m hesitant to ask for details to be revealed, but if you feel it’s safe: can you say anything about “sending Eponine”? If you aren’t sure, chose to remain silent.


Krishna:

<snip>No. You are deliberately leaving out the second part of this assertion, which is that I absolutely will not vote on someone without proof. Further, EmpTyger, anybody who is Pro-Town (I guess except for the Masons?) *should* be willing to vote for absolutely anybody, *IF* given proof of their guilt.

Well, “proof” is a high burden. I mean, did you have such proof when you voted for vikingfan? You can’t assume that you’re going to find true proof of anyone’s guilt, especially on Day 1.

However, I wasn’t so much objecting to the willingness to vote for anyone at all as I was questioning the logic that doing so would prove "that [you're] not scum". I’m not even convinced that being unwilling to vote for somebody implies anything. For example, I think that voting for one of the claimed masons at this point is too risky, even though I feel there are good reasons to suspect them, perhaps more than any other at this point. But I wouldn’t base any conclusion on alignment based on someone’s unwillingness to vote them.

<snip>Is there a way Town can tell Masons to promise not to recruit anyone, as a show of good faith?

I don't think so. Regardless of their alignment, I can’t think of an instance where it would not be in the masons’ best interest to [successfully] recruit. (Which, incidentally, was why I was suspect about there being no night 1 recruitment attempt, although I’m accepting for now the explanation of unknown risk presented by a misrecruit.) Every group in the game, regardless of alignment, wants their team to be as large as possible. [This actually seems like a fascinating theoretical question: what might happen if this axiom were somehow removed. Though I have no idea how such a game would be constructed.]

[EmpTyger]

<grumble>crossposted again...

gootentag:
That wasn’t really what I meant by “booby-trapped” abilities, but perhaps I chose a bad descriptor. I was wondering more about whether there was an ability that was totally antitown, rather than generally protown yet with an antitown side effect: some ability that a protown player would have no reason to choose to use. Perhaps that’s too specific.

I am not attempting to play devil's advocate here. I admit to being a less than frequent poster, but I think one of the reasons is that one of my biggest pet peeves in Mafia in general is people who post to avoid "lurking" and say nothing. If my contributions seem contrary in nature, it is most likely that I feel more compelled to voice them if I feel I'm saying something that hasn't been said.

Nothing wrong with contrariness, but there’s nothing wrong with agreement either. I mean, are you implying that you’ve agreed with everything you haven’t commented on? It may seem self-serving to do so at the time, but in the future, it becomes good for the town to have a basis of where players stand...

FOS:EmpTyger. Another thing that constantly irks me is bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning. Continuing to vote for someone primarily because they currently have the most votes strikes me as inherrently scummy. If you think I'm scum, by all means vote and tell me why so that I may clarify my stance or arguments (and even occasionally change them,) but you can't logically defend myself and it becomes futile to even try.

I voted you because you were one of the people *I* thought suspicious. Since I didn’t feel too strongly about any of my possibilities, I figured that I’d go for those which could be easily addressed- and you’d be receiving a third vote, while another would only be receiving mine.
I wanted clarification not of your actions, but of your style. It shouldn’t take threats or votes to get you to speak.

Having said that, you have responded, and I don’t feel strongly enough to keep you at 3 votes, so

unvote: gootentag

. Though I’m not completely satisfied. If I find myself again needing to vote to hear your opinions, I'll probably be much more reluctant to unvote...


At the risk of renewing a “vendetta”,

vote: LoudmouthLee

. SK might be extremely speculative, but others are concurring with at least one observation I made.

[EmpTyger]

Gah, too much power claimed on the town side...

<snip>So now we've got 2 masons and a person that's unnightkillable. That seems way too powerful for a 9-man game. If all this is true, I'm guessing we're probably missing either a cop or a doc.

Or that [at least] one of the claims is false...?


gootentag:
If we do decide to not lynch LML, I see nothing wrong with your vigilante plan- except for the possibility that we might not have any vigilantes. The town is already touching on overpowered, so I think it’s a real possibility. The only way to know for sure if we have a vigilante is for one to come forward- and that worries me for a several reasons...


Krishna:

<snip>

For those wondering why there is no counterclaim, I think of it like a doc-why counterclaim day 1 and out yourself?

Because it would be nothing like a doc -- it'd be like a cop having full knowledge of a person's guilt. In the event that someone can prove that someone is scum, then isn't it always worth it for them to sacrifice themselves to get the town lynched?

This is hypothetical, but:
In the instance of the doctor, if they stay hidden an extra day, they have a chance of saving someone overnight. In both instances, if the mafia kills them overnight, the same effect is achieved as if they came forward, so the sacrifice prevents a nightkill. Mind you, if Day 2 is a critical lynch situation that the town must get right if it misses Day 1, then this is probably unnecessarily risky, but I’m just mentioning the theoretical possibility. Even if they’re effectively a cop, they're still a doctor.

Mind you, since this game is so small, I’m not sure that that would be applicable here, but I certainly don’t want to speak for everyone. Besides, even if LML is Cosette, that doesn’t mean anything. “Don’t outguess the mod” aside, there’s that Harry Potter precedent and MeMe’s textual examples. (Which I wanted to hypercorrect, but it seemed too irrelevant to get into. Must... resist... urge... for... tangential Les Mis. discussion!)


LML:
Your initial defense was OMGUSx3. Then you claim “crap logic” without pointing out what, where, or how. How was this supposed to encourage people to unvote? And I did get the “witty girls” allusion, but could not figure out what you were trying to reference. Actually, I was guessing something related to Grantaire.

<snip>If you feel it necessary to get the entirity of my role, lynch me. If you're pro-town, you're making a huge mistake.

This doesn’t really jibe with what you claimed. Your claim doesn’t ruin you; on the contrary, you’re still more effective than a vanilla, since you’d be an innocent the mafia couldn’t do anything about. Compare that to a doctor, who faces a likely nightkill after claiming. The town already has a hard enough time distinguishing between a doctor and a mafia claiming doctor. How are we also supposed to factor in the possibility of an unnightkillable claiming doctor?

Plus some other suspicions: as already mentioned by others, your lurking and your defense of your lurking. Plus I found curious how you switched your vote to vikingfan immediately after he unvoted you and announced that he would test you by searching you tonight. Not to mention those suspicions I brought up earlier in the game.

However, despite all this suspicions, you have finally explained your role, although I’m not sure I’d call it sufficient at this point. I would unvote you while I reevaluate, but I would still like one outstanding point cleared up. There were a set of questions that bob asked, which you deferred on account of not wanting your role to be revealed. With that no longer a concern, can you finally address them?

<snip>Any chance on elaborating on (a) what you know about who the scum are or (b) how you know who the scum are?<snip>

[EmpTyger]

Um, ignore my response to vikingfan's quote above. Next time I'll actually read before replying.

[EmpTyger]

Krishna:

<snip>Perhaps there are also 3 Mafia? (!)

A 3 person mafia was briefly mentioned during the earlier analysis of killing groups [40]. The problem I have with it was that it makes the outcome of the game dependent on whether the town lynches correctly on Day 1. If we mislynch today, then with a nightkill there are 6 players and 3 mafia tomorrow, classically a mafia win. (Although I suppose if it’s played out an unnightkillable protown/lucky doctor + a vigilante might allow the town to win, it feels like then the game comes down purely to chance- whether the mafia gets lucky in a random selection.)

Even if they’re effectively a cop, they're still a doctor.

I've read this a few times, but I honestly have absolutely no idea what you mean by this!!

Wow, I could have explained that *much* better.
Since I’m skeptical that LML isn’t Cosette, I think this is really a purely theoretical discussion. But for the purpose of trying to clarify what I meant: this was about whether a player should counterclaim (specifically, if another Cosette exists). The example was that a doctor, by coming forward, would act as a cop since he exposed a mafia. I was trying to point out that such a doctor still had value as a doctor beyond that as alignment-revealer.

How are we also supposed to factor in the possibility of an unnightkillable claiming doctor?

I am again unclear on why you bring up a doctor at all. LML is claiming (perhaps I'm wrong?) to be an un-night-killable Townie, but makes no mention of being a Doctor.<snip>

And I thought the last point I could have explained better...
I did not at all mean to imply that LML was a doctor. “claiming” was a very bad word choice; “having feigned” would have been closer to what I meant. LML had based his actions pre-claim on the statement that he held a power role that should not be revealed, even facing a lynch. For the purpose of example I called that role doctor (since other exposed power roles would have the chance of doctor protection, whereas an exposed doctor, if they are believed and not lynched, face a likely nightkill). So that’s where the doctor comes in. Maybe “doctoresque” would have been better.

Consider the possibilities gootentag put forth for evaluating the mason claims:

<snip>
1 - they are lying about their ability and are scum,
2 - they are telling the truth about their roles and are town,
3 - they are telling the truth about their roles and are scum,<snip>

LML is claiming a 4th option: lying about his role and is town.
(And yes, lying might be too strong an accusation, but at the very least he was being deceptive.)

The other 2 games (admittedly newbies) I’ve been in on this site had power roles lynched Day 1 despite their claims. I felt that there was enough difficulty in a simple evaluation of a Day 1 reluctance to claim that I didn’t think faking a doctoresque role to try to draw mafia attention was a sensible plan, particularly for an innocent under suspicion. For a town evaluating a doctoresque claim, it seems hard enough if the only possibilities are mafia and doctoresque, to say nothing of mafia or doctoresque or unnightkillable.

Basically, I didn’t feel his actions pre-claim made sense for the role he’s claiming, nor do I understand why he is so shocked that people are disbelieving him. In retrospect, maybe I should have simply said that.

As for the “witty girl” comment, perhaps LML could clear that up himself rather than us guessing at it?

[EmpTyger]

I wish I could just tell everyone to ignore [170], for it was poorly worded to begin with, my attempts to clarify aren’t helping, it seems to have been misinterpreted, and most of all it primarily deals with tangential or hypothetical situations. But I personally hate it when points are allowed to drop without being addressed, so let me try once more to defend myself.


LML:

<snip>A game like this would definately have Cosette as a character. Not only that, Emp, but Viking ALSO validated Cosette in the game by spouting out his mason mumbo jumbo before this started. No one, in a matter of MANY posts, have counterclaimed Cosette.

vikingfan was the one who speculated that you weren’t Cosette, in [160]. Krishna’s responded in [169] that a hypothetical real Cosette may as well come forward. I was responded to Krishna about the merits of counterclaim, which I thought purely theoretically because

I believe, and have believed, that you are Cosette.

Am I still lying about my role? Seems like you're just trying to get rid of me.

My suspicion of you does not stem from your claimed *character*, but your claimed *role*. I believe you are Cosette. I am skeptical you are unnightkillable, and that you are protown. I have listed my suspicions repeatedly, and you have not once addressed them. How is this different from your own suspicion of bob’s and vikingfan’s claims? This isn’t personal... except insofar as your only defense seems to be ad hominem attacks against me.

I have a very hard time believing that the game was set up to allow 4 players {Enjolras, Marius, Eponine, Cosette} the ability to confirm each other as innocent and then recruit others. So I conclude one of 3 things: either (1) someone’s lying about their claim, or (2) at least one of those 4 are antitown, or (3) the mafia has no chance of winning (in which case it almost doesn’t matter how we act today, since the town will ultimately win). Based on your behavior throughout the game (which I’ve listed elsewhere and you’ve never offered a defense for) I believe you most likely for source for (1) and (2).

<snip>I never said I was a doc. I played my role to the best of my ability. It wasn't meant to be.

That was an example I was trying to use but made it very badly. Rather than try again I’ll just concede. So let’s assume you played your role as perfectly as possible. How does that explain any of your other behavior, any of the points of suspicion that have been raised against you? Let me list them again:

1) At the beginning of the game, you thought Javert was mafia. Later you say that your role leads you to suspect Javert is not mafia.
2) You refuse to answer questions about (1), claiming that you do not wish to reveal details of your role.
2a) You still refuse after your role is revealed.
2b) What you have revealed does not contain any reason for (1) or (2).
3) You adamantly refuse to reveal any details of your role, but unprompted bring up information derived from your role as well as the claim that you are Cosette.
3a) You act though Cosette is so strong a claim that no one should suspect you, yet did not make this claim earlier, when initially pressured about your role.
4) You repeatedly lurk when the game is, according to you, going in the wrong direction. However, you do not attempt to move the direction of the game in another direction.
4a) ...except to attack those who are skeptical of you based on the unanswered (1) through (4).
5) You vote vikingfan immediately after vikingfan unvotes you, announcing that he will test you tonight. If you are telling the truth, why suspect him?
[6) I personally am skeptical of your roleclaim]
[7) I personally am skeptical that the town could be as strong as everyone has thus far claimed]

I am not “just trying to get rid” of you. I am trying have my suspicions of you addressed, despite your best efforts to evade providing explanations.

So ignore (6) and (7) if you want, since I may be alone in holding them. I don’t think I’m alone in holding any suspicion of you, as quite recently some of them were voiced by other players. Until I hear something plausible or something more suspicious arises, I see no reason to drop the matter, much less unvote you.


Stoofer:
I think the first of your 2 suggestions is much better than the second. In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
My opinion probably carries very little weight on that matter, since I do have an obvious conflict-of-interest, but I’d rather LML revealed who he believes mafia characters are before you went.

I would also like you to clarify the point MeMe raised in [181]...

[EmpTyger]

Well, this is silly- we’re getting nowhere. I think we should just claim out our characters and roles. I may as well go first. I’m Thenardier. Once per night I can target another player and have the Patron-Minette rob them. Last night I targeted Seol, but he didn’t have anything of value on him. I have an unusual win condition: I win when I’m the only one who possesses any valuables. Since my role is rather powerful, to balance it out I appear as mafia when investigated.


LML:
I’m not the only one who noticed your lurking. I find your explanations very weak. Not to mention incomplete; you didn’t address your vote for vikingfan in [166].
I am not yet more suspicious of anyone else, so I’m going to leave my vote for now.


MeMe:
Stoofer already conceded the point, so why attack gootentag for making it? Especially as at the very beginning of the game, you acted very similarly to gootentag when you were pointing out the folly of airing suspicions of Javert in [14]. Can you explain this inconsistency?

And I think you’re wrong in your conclusion that it would have worked well for the town. Stoofer basically outlined the reasoning in [191], but I would like to point out one additional factor: there is a chance Stoofer, even if protown, is wrong in his suspicions. (Especially in light of the fact that LML’s similar assertion was based on complete speculation.) So his suspicion/knowledge may yet have value

provided that the mafia do not know how definite it is.

And this is why I do not think Stoofer should explain further, and why I am becoming suspicious of you. Right now, the mafia might not know what their optimal course of action is. In some cases it would be to claim their true roles rather than take the risk of fabrication; if other cases it would be necessary to claim others since their own roles would mark them. I agree that Stoofer quickly admitted to making a bad play. I agree that gootentag forgave that mistake just as quickly. But neither of those by themself are enough to make me suspicious.

<snip>Basically, I just don't see the reason to quash Stoofer's plan before finding out what he thinks he knows. Either Stoofer's scum or the information he claims to have could help us.

You seem to be going out of your way to attack gootentag, as well as to find a way to get Stoofer’s proposal to work. I’ve said above why I see pushing for Stoofer to clarify his plan as suspicious. As for as gootentag, the error was made before he even posted in this discussion:

<snip>What I was afraid of was that a consensus would emerge that X was scum. Then the real X would never claim to be X and my idea wouldn't work.<snip>

With 2 people having hinted that they knew from their roles who the mafia are, it’s not like the mafia were going to burst out claiming, regardless of which characters they were or how innocent their characters seemed. (With the obvious assumption that neither LML nor Stoofer are mafia, but that doesn’t matter for this analysis.) So at this point, the idea as proposed wouldn’t work. Which gootentag pointed out, costing the town nothing and potentially leaving Stoofer’s [alleged] knowledge some [potential] value.


Stoofer:
Honestly, I want to laugh in empathy and irony.
I don’t know any good way to differentiate between poor play and something sinisterly deliberate. The best I can think of is to give the benefit of the doubt and see if anything corroborative later comes up, which is what I will do.


All:
I would like to mention that I have an observation that I am very reluctant to mention, lest I “pull a Stoofer”, if you will (no offense). If we become deadlocked, I will speak, but I think there is enough to discuss.

[EmpTyger]

I agree with MeMe: a Therardier-based mafia seems more likely.

I’m Thenardier.

Thanks. That makes things SO much easier.

unvote: gootentag
vote: EmpTyger

Huh. I guess you’re right. I must be mafia.

Unvote: LoudmouthLee
Vote: EmpTyger

[EmpTyger]

Hold on, I just reread my role, and it seems I missed a small detail. Apparently, all of that stuff I claimed is only true on April 1.

Unvote: EmpTyger
Vote: LoudmouthLee

APRIL FOOLS

[EmpTyger]

Aelyn:
Could the deadline rules be spelled out?

Also I’m hesitant to ask about something you seem to have deliberately left vague, but:

<snip>Seol (Grantaire, townie)

<snip>do we consider that there are several vanillas (there's at least one (Seol))<snip>

Does “townie” refer to alignment or role? In other words, should we assume Seol was a vanilla, or should we draw no inference? Or would you rather not say one way or the other?
[Apologies, since this does feel like it’s on the wrong side of metagaming, but I thought the point should be considered. Aelyn, if you would rather not answer, don’t.]


MeMe:
Forgive me, but do you have a sense of humor?

I’m not going to bother to defend myself since I can’t see anyone honestly using that as a true basis for their vote. Honestly, I would love to see who else uses this as an excuse to vote for me, but with the deadline that feels too risky an option.


All:
vikingfan informed that he would be away, and MeMe and I have been active. So prior to the deadline being imposed:

bob hadn’t posted in almost 5 days.
gootentag hadn’t posted in 2 days.
Krishna hadn’t posted in 4 days, but had posted repeatedly in another game.
LML hadn’t posted in 3 days, but had posted repeatedly in 5 other games.
Stoofer hadn’t posted in 2 days.

(Though it was the weekend, which might partially excuse gootentag and Stoofer.)

I am torn three-ways.
1) Self-preservation indicates that I should leave my vote on LML. (To say nothing of all that stuff from earlier.)
2) However, the lurking makes me wonder. Temporarily assuming LML to be innocent (as well as myself, requiring no assumption for *me*), could mafia be ducking because LML and I are innocent, and therefore see no reason to interject themselves? Of course, LML is one of the worst lurkers, but with the assumption that he is innocent, then Krishna’s absence might be significant.
3) MeMe’s last posts, as mentioned above, for which I can see no other explanation than her attempting to create suspicion of me out of nothing.

I see more reasons to leave my vote on LML than change it, so for now I will do that. (I suppose I could use FoSs but I don’t really care for them stylistically.)

[EmpTyger]

Fine. I’ll bother to defend myself. I’ll get into a semantic discussion of humor under a deadline situation.

This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. I thought that I had the opportunity to do something which I believed would be obviously funny. I actually was afraid my joke was *too* obvious to be an effective April Fool’s joke. And, in humor, timing is everything. I figured the very next post would be someone saying “lol”. (Indeed, I almost wondered whether MeMe was “playing along” in [196], with the outside chance that she was trying to encourage someone to cast a vote using such dubious reasoning. I disregarded those possibilities after the deadline was imposed.) So I included a post’s worth of content in with the joke to give all readers a chance to wonder “wait, could he possibility be serious?”. (And also because I did have content to post, and didn’t want the flow of the game to be disrupted for an April Fool’s prank. Which it seems to have been.)

I still have a very hard time believing that MeMe believes that I was in the slightest way serious in claiming. First of all, it had generally been agreed by numerous players *including myself* that Thenardier was a likely antitown character. Maybe I chose Thenardier because I could think of no other claim which would be so obviously antitown? For the joke doesn’t work without someone obvious?

Second, the “detailed role mechanics” I gave myself clearly indicate that I was deliberately claiming an antitown character! Paraphrased, the abilities are to send a criminal gang after a targeted character (who happens to be the night 1 victim), and to show up as mafia when investigates, and to win when there was no town left. A by-the-book mafia role. Again, I was actually worried that it would be too obvious a prank- and had I spelled it out with less detailed claim, it would have been.

Third, why on earth would I just jump out unprompted and admit to being Thenardier if I were actually him? What purpose would it possibly have?

And as for “confusion”- what about it was confusing? MeMe, you’re the only person who seems to have admitted to any confusion, so would you like to elaborate? I think it’s straightforward. I feel that what I posted *on April 1* should have been obviously been a joke, which would run its course over the next few posts, and then after the laughter receded on 4/2 we’d get back to the game. I feel that MeMe has had to torturously consider some unlikely hypothetical situations to work this into a nefarious ploy. This paragraph in particular:

<snip>In my opinion, no to all of the above. I think this is a simple case of EmpTyger forgetting his earlier post. If he remembered what he'd said, why leave it to someone else to find the contradiction...thereby making it necessary for someone to vote him and make the joke for him? Seems he's banking an awful lot on someone else's detective skills. And what if everyone had just bought the claim without a blink? He would have been in the uncomfortable position of having to say..."um, hey -- that was a joke back there that nobody got. I'm not really Thenardier. Heh." You can disagree with me, Bob -- but buying it as a joke without giving it a second glance while disparaging the intelligence of someone who chooses to take every post seriously is extremely questionable for a pro-town player.<snip>

Basically, I would have had to
1) forgotten a repeated conclusion- made at one point by myself.
2) assuming that, in a game of mafia, a game of *deduction*, people won’t use their deductive skills. (You’re wondering why I didn’t spell out the punchline? Because I felt- and still feel- it was unnecessary and made for more effective a joke if I didn’t.)
3) have some nefarious motive for doing this. The only one I can see is providing amusement. For the record, I think it was so funny that it was worth doing. I hope it doesn’t cost the game.

<snip>And what if everyone had just bought the claim without a blink?<snip>

I would have been most disappointed in you.
I mean, when Taco Bell bought the Liberty Bell to balance the budget, I don’t think they were worried about people accepting it "without a blink".


bob:
I do want to say that I appreciate your defending me, but, in fairness, you did seem to stray a bit over the line in attacking MeMe.


vikingfan:
Could you clarify why you are voting for me?


LML:
I was not as concerned about bob, even though he had two extended absences: one he announced beforehand and during both he wasn’t active in other threads. I don’t really consider that kind of math for determining lurking- I don’t consider when you were posting, but rather when you *weren’t*. Timing is everything, as they say. I felt your silences were occurring at particularly harmful points for the town. I also feel (at still do) that while you address certain suspicions you deliberately are ignoring others.

However, I’ll admit I’m finding it harder to justify a vote on you. You could have used the “distraction” created by MeMe’s obsession over the April Fool’s to stray from substantive material, and yet you didn’t. I may regret this on Wed., if not Day 2, but

Unvote: LoudmouthLee

.


MeMe:

<snip>Would any good player (which EmpTyger definitely is)<snip>

I accept your compliment of my skill. This is only my third game online, and even if it’s stated amid an accusation, I admit I feel a little honored by your estimation of me. Thank you.

Having said that,

Vote: MeMe

. You seem to be too good a player to be basing your vote on the logic you are using. Particularly since this conveniently distracting from my calling attention to you in [195] with this semantic analysis of a joke.

And also:
Since I feel there may be a good chance of my not surviving, I’ll reveal the observation I hinted at at the end of [195] while there may still be time to do something about it.

vikingfan confirmed that Eponine and Cosette exist. I found it odd that Cosette came forward while Eponine didn’t. In [183] I explained why I felt that 1 of {Enjolras, Marius, Cosette, Eponine} might be mafia. At the time I was thinking Cosette was likely antitown, partially based on LML’s behavior and partially since I felt coming forward was not the correct action for the situation.

In my April Fool's claim I omitted one detail otherwise typical for a mafia- I did not name any fellow mafia members. I did not for the same reason I did not announce this observation: because I realized that the most likely fellow mafia with Thernardier would be Eponine. And, as indicated elsewhere, I thought it best to not want discourage a potential antitown away from a potentially incriminating claim.

But I observed one statement:

<snip>Stoofer's plan could only work IF the scum are roles that are generally considered innocent <snip> (e.g., if Stoofer thinks his role tells him that, say, Fantine and Eponine are scum).<snip>

Eponine? Aside from the second most prominent member of the Thenardier clan, she draws Marius into the barricade. She might very well be innocent, but I’d hardly label her so obviously not mafia. However, I thought at the time that MeMe might just be trying to draw out Eponine.

Since we have decided not to claim further today, and I can't be confident of surviving until tomorrow, and am currently suspicious of MeMe for other reasons, I have decided to present these observations.

[EmpTyger]

For what it's worth, Krishna was just logged on, and clearly didn't post.

[EmpTyger]

For what it's worth, Krishna was just logged on, and clearly didn't post.

<smile> I was just reallly slow... sorry.
Will read your above post now and post again. Feel free to expect my response in a few hours. <GRIN>

-K

Sorry about that. Yay crossposting

At first, I thought EmpTyger ridiculously funny, but then I was wondering if he actually meant for the rest of the post to be taken seriously. Tyger, if you could let us know that, it might clear up MeMe's suspicion of you.

The first paragraph of [195] was the joke. (The one which begins, "Well, this is silly-".)
The rest of [195] was serious.

[EmpTyger]

Well, I have a funny feeling about what’s happening- but I with effectively 4 votes on me I have no choice but to claim. So here it is. I’m Thenardier. Once per night I can target another player and have the Patron-Minette rob them. Last night I targeted Seol, but he didn’t have anything of value on him. I have an unusual win condition: I win when I’m the only one who possesses any valuables. Since my role is rather powerful, to balance it out I appear as mafia when investigated...

[EmpTyger]

<checks calendar>
Oh, wait. Nevermind.


[I’m terribly sorry, but I *still* maintain that it’s hilarious.
Besides, I think all the humorless folk are already voting for me, so why not seize an encore?]

Seriously now:

I am *not* Thenardier.
I do *not* rob people.
I did *not* target Seol last night.
I win when *mafia* are eliminated.
I have *no* idea how I appear when investigated.

Who am I? I’m Jean Valjean. I’m a doctor- each night I can choose someone to try to save. (If it winds up mattering on a future day, I targeted bob last night.)


LML:

So, Emp... Give me your rationale behind the vote of MeMe besides OMGUS.

Um, if my motive were OMGUS, I’d have just left my vote on you...
I’ve mentioned all my reasons before, but if you want them neatly compiled:

1) She tries to get Stoofer to reveal who he thinks the mafia is. Despite gootentag showing this to be a bad idea- and Stoofer admitting that it was a bad idea- and MeMe herself, in a similar situation in [14], stating that the similar situation would be a bad idea.
2) When I bring attention to this, she focuses attention onto my *obvious* April Fool’s joke. The entire Stoofer-gootentag discussion, and pretty much everything else, is dropped, convenient before attention can be called to the bottom 90% of [195].
3) She seemed to be playing along [199], but then as soon as the deadline hits, decides that the explanation must be that I honestly admitted to being mafia [201]. And she turns all discussion to the evaluation of a joke which has nothing to do with the game.
4) I personally don’t see how she can honestly find a sinister motive in my making a joke, and her efforts to do so seem much more convoluted and illogical reasoning than her posts earlier in the game used. The best she’s given is to “create confusion”, yet most of the confusion stems from her crying mafia.
5) She proposed Eponine as an example of a “non-scummy role”. Explained further in [208]. Not much on its own, but it’s one more thing.


vikingfan:
Could you explain why you’re voting me?


Stoofer:
Could you explain what part of [208] is “particularly scummy”?


[Aelyn: I had trouble reaching the site today- some “domain not renewed” error? Could you be sensitive to that when considering the deadline?]

[EmpTyger]

Let me try one more time. J-O-K-E. Joke. They’re often told on April Fools. People generally laugh at them.

I am *not* Thenardier. I MADE UP THE THENARDIER CLAIM AS AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. Because I thought it was funny. Which I still think is funny. Which is why I reprised it prior to my claim. Because I still thought it was funny, and I thought if people had another shot at the joke they might get it the second time. I’m playing this game to have fun. I thought others would appreciate the joke.

I AM NOT THENARDIER. It was a joke. It is a joke. J-O-K-E.

I can’t follow the logic “he [made an obvious] joke about being mafia” -> “he is mafia” that has been used- and don’t see how other players can either. I’ve only heard 2 possible sinister motives given, and I still don't think either makes sense:

MeMe’s “to create confusion”- and I feel the confusion has been brought about by the MeMe’s insistence on taking what is obviously a joke as literally true.
gootentag’s “he’s a scummy Valjean”- which seems ludicrous. What would I pretend to be a character that LML had just admitted he suspected was mafia, and which others *including myself* had voiced suspicion of? Or what would I gain by then honestly claiming my own character when Stoofer still possibly having knowledge of mafia characters?


Stoofer:

<snip>I want him to explain the theme justification for him being a doctor. Aleyn's role PM's are never as simple as "you are the doctor".

It wasn’t, but I can’t exactly quote the PM. (And talk about outguessing the mod...)

Valjean removes people from deadly situations such as abuse (Cosette), execution (Javert), death at the barricade (Marius), and being crushed by a cart (Fauchelevent). I save lives.

I would like to point out that this is a must stronger connection between character and role than LML gave for Cosette.

Stoofer: Could you explain what part of [208] is “particularly scummy”?

It was the post as a whole, but I particulalrly didn't like the way you were flinging around semi-confident assertions about who the mafia were.

I think all would agree that, regardless of my role, I won’t be sticking around much longer. So I saw no reason to take observations to the grave with me. For example, I was not sure anyone else would notice the point about Eponine, and thought it potentially important enough to bring up.


vikingfan:

<snip>As for why I'm voting you, it's pretty much all the points already made.

For the benefit of the members of the town who will actually be around tomorrow, could you clarify further?

Plus, why the heck are you FIRST claiming Thenardier, and then claiming Valjean? Why not just make one claim?

Compare [218] to [195]. Notice any odd similarities?
<sigh>
The Thenardier claim is a *joke*.

If, however, you are scum, then that indicates to me that she's semi-clear-in a game this small, it's not likely that someone would deliberately sacrifice a mafia partner.

If I happen to be scum I am willing to concede that MeMe is innocent.


MeMe:

EmpTyger is so drippily scummy that it's incredible to me that he's not been lynched yet.

Please vote him.

Because you don’t have a sense of humor, *I*’m mafia???

Let me add to my reasons against you:
6) Being awfully anxious to rush a lynch of a claimed doctor.

[And I apologize: I shouldn’t have singled you out for not having a sense of humor...]


gootentag:
As stated above, why on earth would I do that: to maximize my chances of getting people to suspect me? You’re saying that you honestly believe that it is more likely that I went through all that trouble to lie about a claim that people would find suspicious than my actual role? That that’s somehow more likely than my making a simple April Fool’s joke?

Tell me what I could have gained with your motive, or with MeMe’s motive, or with any other motive besides humor.


LML:
Was looking back through the thread and this caught my eye, and I was too amused by the irony.

The witty girl comment was a failed attempt at humor. Please disregard.

Just a few notes after reading.. A game like this would definately have Cosette as a character. Not only that, Emp, but Viking ALSO validated Cosette in the game by spouting out his mason mumbo jumbo before this started. No one, in a matter of MANY posts, have counterclaimed Cosette.

I am not fortunate enough to have anyone come forward with validation, but wouldn’t you agree that Valjean would definitely be in a game like this, and no one has counterclaimed Cosette? (Although Krishna admittedly hasn’t yet posted...)


Krishna:
<waits for crosspost>

[EmpTyger]

I do not have time to respond more fully than this now, but wanted to say something in response to MeMe's counterclaim before the deadline hit, in case it was enforced. Thought given that Krishna also had access problems, and posting has picked up, and the day will likely end naturally soon one way or another, can you relax the deadline, Aelyn? I will try to get to a computer again as soon as I can.


Responding to Stoofer's arguments, just because they're most organized:

4) MeMe was dead by tomorrow anyway- after my claim is verified by my death, how would she avoid a lynch? And as a doctor, the mafia almost has to nightkill me if the lynch fails, and so my claim would be verifiable tomorrow morning one way or the other. Once Krishna showed up it was definite that there weren't enough others who would lynch me. LML seemed like he might unvote. MeMe had nothing to lose by counterclaiming, but if mafia, a lot to gain- an extra nightkill.

5) No! Because she was just as insisting on lynching me *before* I claimed Valjean! At that time her only evidence was some sinister motive to my April Fool’s joke, and haven't I said enough about why her logic then is ridiculous? Her only evidence (beyond the counterclaim) has been some "obvious scumminess" she won’t speak about. Compare her posts, before and after I claim Valjean ([201]), and after ([221]). She was just as insistently vague in one as in the other. From her point of view, she had no reason to be before, because I hadn’t yet claimed “her” role!

6B) See (4). She doesn't lose anything by putting her neck in the noose, either.

[EmpTyger]

Glad I'm still alive, though given how precarious it is I don't expect to stay so much longer, but I'm at least trading for 1 mafia.

Sorry again for the absence earlier today. I'm typing up some final thoughts now- if gootentag, bob, or Krishna are wavering, please give me just a little longer!

[EmpTyger]

Sorry again, all, for the delay.
I don’t think there’s anything I can add to my defense that hasn’t already been said. (It’s still MeMe’s word vs. mine; and somehow an obvious joke I’ve made is being taken as the ultimate sign of evil.) There’s no point in attacking MeMe- it’s obvious it’s her or me, and half have already made up their minds.

Yet I see no reason to stay silent- besides if I survive this imminent lynch I will certainly be nightkilled, so this is my last chance to talk. And there must be another antitown out there, so I may as well try to take both down with me. So here are some final thoughts to help the town.

As I said, obviously, one of {MeMe, Tyger} must be mafia (or SK if 2 SK setup). So in any case,

this clears bob and vikingfan

. Since both bob and vikingfan would have to be mafia together, and at least one other must be mafia, and it’s been shown that that cannot work mathematically. (We need either 2 SKs or a 2 person mafia to survive past a day 1 mislynch.)

Now, even without my role, the town was still considered overpowered. With bob and vikingfan innocent, that focuses even more attention on LML. I’d list more suspicions, but we know how much he likes ignoring what I have to say.
[Aside to bob: the problem I had with LML was halo, and the problem I had with voting LML was halo. Good luck sorting it out.]

If it somehow becomes clear that LML is innocent, I propose whoever Eponine is (provided it’s not MeMe). Given what had gone on during the vikingfan claim, either both Eponine and Cosette should have come forward, or neither. Moreover, I’ve mentioned already how MeMe’s handled Eponine oddly. For example, looking back over the thread, I noticed this:

Perhaps if Eponine finds Cosette, Ep dies (as she did in book).

This is *not* what happened in the book. The only connection is temporal, and as to that, you might as well say that if Eponine finds Cosette, Javert or Gavroche or Valjean dies. So the only conclusion I can draw is that she was trying to discourage the masons from using their abilities. In that post she also first proposes the idea that their abilities are antitown. Please, after my death, reread the thread and reevaluate immediately- don’t wait until tomorrow; do it before your night choices.

No reason for delay.

Finally, for what it’s worth, let me again point out how anxious MeMe has been to rush my lynch. If she were town, wouldn’t she want to have these voting patterns to analyze? Moreover, a rush might bring night upon before a chance for the reevaluation of night abilities. Like the talk about “searching for Cosette”, that MeMe keeps superseding by forcing attention onto me.

If this is it, thanks all and mod. Would love to discuss the novel in postmortem.

[EmpTyger]

Strawmen, circular logic, and contradictions, yet I'm facing the lynching...?!

I have no idea whether MeMe's vote-editing ability is honest but actually a mafia ability, or whether she's hoping to get people to pile on in a false twilight thinking voting no longer matters, but I'll assume I have a chance. Could someone unvote, on the offchance that she's giving an instruction to a mafia compatriot who has yet to login?

somehow an obvious joke I’ve made is being taken as the ultimate sign of evil

No - your "joke" was taken as a

probable

sign of evil. Claiming my role is a

sure

(though still not "ultimate") sign of evil.

Blatantly false. You were "sure" long before I claimed. [201]. Right after the joke, when the deadline was announced:

The lynchee is incredibly obvious -- now get in here and vote EmpTyger."

So in any case,

this clears bob and vikingfan

. Since both bob and vikingfan would have to be mafia together,

I must have missed the part where we all decided that bob and vikingfan would "have to be mafia together." Mind pointing me to it?

Um, when they supported each other claiming *mason*. I’m sure you can find it mentioned a couple times in the thread. Why would bob support the claim if vikingfan were a mafia falsely claiming mason? Or are you proposing a protown-antitown mason group?

Perhaps if Eponine finds Cosette, Ep dies (as she did in book).

This is *not* what happened in the book.

Well, yeah it did. Ep delivered a message to Cosette from Marius and then went on to die. I did not say that Eponine died as a result of finding Cosette. But she does die

after

finding her.

The only connection is temporal, and as to that, you might as well say that if Eponine finds Cosette, Javert or Gavroche or Valjean dies.

Yes - they die after that event as well. But as it was claimed that Marius sends Eponine to find Cosette, I thought the most likely scenario of danger would be to one of those three -- and since Eponine is the only one of the three who winds up dead, it seems plausible (much more so than Javert or Gavroche dying, anyway).

So the only conclusion I can draw is that she was trying to discourage the masons from using their abilities.

Yep - I was pretty clear about that. If the town has as much power as their claimed abilities imply, using them is dangerous. However, I still think it's possible that one or the other could be scum. Again, please remind me if this possibility has somewhere been disproven.

I can't believe 3 others think that *I*'m doing more to spread confusion than you.

The masons' abilities are too powerful for the town, therefore they shouldn't use their abilities. Masons may be mafia. Abilities of protown players may actually be antitown. There's an alternate explanation that can't be proven for every single thing.
Every single thing, except, of course, for a joke a told on April Fool's Day, which obviously must have to be sinister.

This makes sense how?

Please, after my death, reread the thread and reevaluate immediately- don’t wait until tomorrow; do it before your night choices.

Please, after his death, pause to admire the beauty of his attempts to stay alive.

No reason for delay.

Finally, for what it’s worth, let me again point out how anxious MeMe has been to rush my lynch. If she were town, wouldn’t she want to have these voting patterns to analyze?

Nope. As I'm on record as saying, I think you're a good player. Since I know you're scum, I want there to be absolutely no chance of you talking yourself out of being lynched. As a player with a pretty good record of talking herself out of "certain" death, I know just how dangerous allowing scum to flap their gums can be.

I note the dramatic irony of your last sentence. You're a good player, too.

However, considering how anxious you are to see who's voting and not voting for me given the chance, maybe you're contradicting yourself again?


Regarding gootentag's partial claim:
If he's telling the truth, the math pretty much dictates that the antitown be 2 SKs, since otherwise a majority is ridiculous to obtain. (Which might explain how someone like Cosette could happen to be antitown with someone like Thenardier.)
If gootentag is lying, well, then he's the second antitown and the setup is irrelevant.

[EmpTyger]

Watch the buggers dance
Watch 'em till they drop
Keep your wits about you
And you stand on top!

Thanks mod and all for the game, and excellent job gootentag! Even after being lynched Day 1, I really enjoyed following the game.

Can I insist one last time that my April Fool’s joke really was nothing but an April Fool’s joke? It wasn’t a mistaken claim that needed to be corrected, or a gambit to try multiple claims, or an attempt to draw out others claims, or a diversion, or anything else like that. I would have done the exact same thing regardless of what my role was, so it was quite frustrating to be lynched for what I saw as clear illogic- all the more frustrating when said illogic happened to lead to the “correct” lynch. I even apologized to Aelyn afterwards, since I was afraid my little joke might have ruined the game. (Kind of the same thing for that initial survey about familiarity with the book, although I did have an ulterior motive then. While it was something I would have done as protown since I honestly felt it could have limited the mafia’s options, I knew it wouldn’t affect my play, so I figured it was a harmless thing I could do that might make me look protown. Clearly that backfired completely.) There's probably a lesson here...

I know mafia is a team game, but gootentag deserves most- if not all- of the credit for the win. (In fact, as originally written, my role also required me to be alive to win- Aelyn PMed me that he had changed it to the traditional mafia win condition. I had wanted to check before I sold out gootentag- just as well I didn't!) I had thought the game was over after my lynch- bob was a mason, and everyone else had voted for me. I thought a case might be made about little things, like Krishna’s last second vote, but I figured with 2 days, the town would have to hit gootentag. Not to mention the other obstacles: the reinforcing claims, LML’s unnightkillability, the recruitable masons, MeMe’s still-existing extra vote, Stoofer possessing knowledge about mafia characters, and a doctor actually existing. In fact the town seemed so powerful I wondered whether MeMe might actually have been a SK.

I want to apologize to gootentag for messing up my claim. I had planned on claiming Gavroche, since I knew from the beginning my own character wasn’t safe. But then I read this:

given how much I sysmpathize (out of game, of course) with the revolutionaries, and in particular, Gavroche,

You have no idea how much I went back and forth and back and forth on this, trying to figure out whether Krishna was hinting at being Gavroche, but finally decided he was. Under that assumption, Stoofer and MeMe had 2 of {Valjean, Javert, Eponine}, and Eponine was clearly in the game. MeMe’s initial non-random vote on gootentag scared me away from claiming Javert- a counterclaim might leave both mafia exposed, even if the town believed me over her. So I went with Valjean, and since I couldn’t think of anyone more likely to be doctor (with the possible exception of the bishop) I claimed that as my role. Oops. Bad assumptions can be fatal.


bob:
I think you made a mistake by not recruiting night 1- you could have told vikingfan who you targeted, and if anything happened to you, vikingfan could report it the next day. I suppose that wording of "spies" is tricky. I was actually wondering whether you started off alone and recruited vikingfan night 1, and then were lying about it for some reason.

Krishna:
You made a few mistakes, but as mafia I tried not to call too much attention to them at the time, hoping that they’d be remembered in the endgame. Though there’s no way of realizing it at the time, as it happens, if you had nightkilled yourself, MeMe lynches gootentag and the town wins! (Useless strategically, but fascinating from a literary standpoint!)

LML:
Just to clarify, but I did not intend anything personal in any comments. When I referred to the “vendetta”, it was in jest after someone called our exchanged that earlier in the game. I quite enjoyed playing with you- as I did with everyone, actually. (Well, except for Seol, who lurked way too much. I mean, I can’t remember him making a single substantial post the entire game.)

MeMe:
I’m still not sure how you were so confident about me prior to my claiming Valjean! It was quite clever to save your extra vote- that could have swung a 2 person endgame to the town- but honestly I think it made you more suspicious, since looked like you were lying about your power, even though my death solidified your innocence. I did think you were acting plenty suspicious enough on the first couple pages that I didn’t see stylistically how I *couldn’t* react (that business with the non-Javert cops and guaranteed sanities) but I was very nervous because I worried you were a cop and I was spooked by that “non-random” vote on gootentag. By the way, what did you ever mean by “And you playing at being game savior just makes me giggle.”? I may have to target you in any future games, just in case I feel like making jokes, O nonhumorous one.

Stoofer:
Good job on not giving away that you were a doctor when I claimed to be one. Your neutral response to my claim was what encouraged me to press MeMe about being Eponine, which certainly didn't help. Out of curiosity, how would you have acted on the final day? I was wondering how it would have played out if gootentag tried something radical like targeting MeMe.

vikingfan:
I think splitting your vote with bob day 1 was a mistake: it seemed like it was very possible that you weren’t aligned with him.

Aelyn:
Again, a very fun game- thanks for modding! I take it Javert couldn't investigate hiumself? (even though there would be very few situations where that would be the correct course of action, I'm still curious) By the way, if you aren’t saving it for a future game, what was the unusual rule that wasn’t used?


Anyone have feedback for me? This was my first time playing as an antitown (and for that matter, in a non-newbie game), and while I clearly could have done better, I can’t really protest the result.