Mafia 95 - Quick & Dirty - Game Over!

[Xylthixlm]

scotmany: I guess I didn't do it in Medieval Mafia, assuming you count "BANDWAGON!" as a reason. So how about this post from Lynch All Lurkers. Or this post from the same game.

[scotmany12]

scotmany: I guess I didn't do it in Medieval Mafia, assuming you count "BANDWAGON!" as a reason. So how about this post from Lynch All Lurkers. Or this post from the same game.

Touche. What were you in Lynch All Lurker btw? I assume town but it wasn't on the front page.

[Xylthixlm]

What were you in Lynch All Lurker btw?

Town.

[xRECKONERx]

It looks like we are dealing with two killing groups, which is most likely two scum groups of 2. If this is the situation, then not every town member has to be in agreement.

One scum is already dead.

I wouldn't say that my claim is baseless, seeing as how every vote you've posted has lacked reasoning.

It's how he plays dude. However, I don't like how sam used his own meta to defend his actions. I just hate it when people do that.

I don't think saying "I don't give a defense or reasons for my votes; it's my playstyle" is a legitimate excuse.

[ConsonantM]

Where's Laz? (My vote is on Laz.)
Working on my case, but it helps if the player in question doesn't get replaced...so that they can answer questions of mine better than a replacement can.

[sam.samhorn]

I don't think saying "I don't give a defense or reasons for my votes; it's my playstyle" is a legitimate excuse.

Generally I give reasons sometime after I make my initial vote. Would you like me to go into detail on why I'm voting for Phoebus?

[sam.samhorn]

However, I don't like how sam used his own meta to defend his actions. I just hate it when people do that.

Absolutely agreed. Sam has basically been doing what you accused me of all game, and now he's defending it with meta. If your playstyle is crappy enough that you need to defend it with meta

change your playstyle

.

This is a legitimate argument against me. However I'm too lazy to change my playstyle. It's fun playing with a massive ego.

[cateraction]

Can we lynch Pheobus now?

[scotmany12]

I wouldn't say that my claim is baseless, seeing as how every vote you've posted has lacked reasoning.

It's how he plays dude. However, I don't like how sam used his own meta to defend his actions. I just hate it when people do that.

I don't think saying "I don't give a defense or reasons for my votes; it's my playstyle" is a legitimate excuse.

When you vote him for something that he always do, it becomes nothing more than a policy lynch. Something which you attacked sam for doing in the first place.

[Xylthixlm]

scotmany, go compare sam.samhorn's play in this game to his play in Medieval Mafia. It looks to me like he contributed more in MM than he is here. Policy lynch issues aside, even if he normally doesn't contribute much it's still scummy when he contributes less than usual.

[scotmany12]

scotmany, go compare sam.samhorn's play in this game to his play in Medieval Mafia. It looks to me like he contributed more in MM than he is here. Policy lynch issues aside, even if he normally doesn't contribute much it's still scummy when he contributes less than usual.

I would agree that he contributed more there, but his posting style has definitely been very similar. And I don't think you can determine how much he usually posts based off of one game. Each game will generally have a different level of interest to some players, which does affect how much a player puts into a game. This is how he plays, his play is very similar to that of his in medieval mafia, where he was town.

[Xylthixlm]

I don't think saying "I don't give a defense or reasons for my votes; it's my playstyle" is a legitimate excuse.

Generally I give reasons sometime after I make my initial vote. Would you like me to go into detail on why I'm voting for Phoebus?

Yes.

[lazarusmoth]

Augh. I'm not liking how the game is getting tied up with meta claims and ad hominem attacks.

Can we lynch Pheobus now?

This sentiment I can agree with.

[sam.samhorn]

scotmany, go compare sam.samhorn's play in this game to his play in Medieval Mafia. It looks to me like he contributed more in MM than he is here. Policy lynch issues aside, even if he normally doesn't contribute much it's still scummy when he contributes less than usual.

I implore you to read a couple games I've played with Quagmire. This is about par for the course, although usually I post one good contentpost. I'll post my thoughts on Phoebus maybe tonight if I have a little time.

[xRECKONERx]

@sam:

Yes, I already asked you to expand on why you're voting for Phoebus, so please stop stalling and give an in-depth reason. My suspicions of Phoebus have not subsided, you've just jumped to the foreground.

[sam.samhorn]

@sam:

Yes, I already asked you to expand on why you're voting for Phoebus, so please stop stalling and give an in-depth reason. My suspicions of Phoebus have not subsided, you've just jumped to the foreground.

Right on. Tonight or tomorrow when I have time I'll post my thoughts on Phoebus. RIght now I'm at work and lunch break is almost done.

[Xylthixlm]

Tonight or

tomorrow

? Deadline is two days from tonight. You knew this game would have short deadlines and high activity requirements when you signed up.

[xRECKONERx]

@cateraction:

Meh, was attempting to avoid it, as my role isn't a savior by any means.

Roleblocker - blocked Papa Zito Night 1. Thought surely one of he and Lamont were scum.

I don't believe this. Even if he is telling the truth (unlikely) it's still not an enormously useful role. It's too easy a scum claim. I still advocate for his lynch.

I didn't catch this before; but you said even if he was telling the truth about being a RB, you'd still advocate his lynch. How is lynching a town role EVER EVER EVER a good thing?

FoS: Dizzy, Consonant, and Dizzy for not being on one of the two major wagons at deadline.

I think Reckoner is semi-cleared in my mind for voting for Rhinox when there was clearly as decent wagon going on who we now know was a mislynch (inhim).

In light of all this, I would like to

Vote: Dizzy

I didn't see any reasoning behind this vote upon my re-read. Care to elaborate?

I could go for an xylth or laz lynch too. Sam and Reck still read town to me.

The previous day you were pushing hardcore for a lynch on me or inHim. So what changed your mind on me so suddenly?

[Xylthixlm]

@cateraction:

I don't believe this. Even if he is telling the truth (unlikely) it's still not an enormously useful role. It's too easy a scum claim. I still advocate for his lynch.

I didn't catch this before; but you said even if he was telling the truth about being a RB, you'd still advocate his lynch. How is lynching a town role EVER EVER EVER a good thing?

Read that again. He didn't say that he'd still advocate the lynch even if inHim was telling the truth.

[xRECKONERx]

Ah, yeah.
Got ya.

Still, did we have any reason not to believe his claim?

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count:

5 to lynch

Phoebus: 3 (sam.samhorn, cateraction, lazarusmoth)
sam.samhorn: 2 (xRECKONERx, Xylthixlm)
lazarusmoth: 1 (ConsonantM)
cateraction: 1 (Phoebus)

Not Voting: 1 (scotmany12)

Current Deadline:

Thursday June 25th, 10 PM Eastern

[xRECKONERx]

I'm conflicted in voting Phoebus due to both sam and lazarus's placement on the wagon.

[Xylthixlm]

I'm still waiting for someone to make an amazing compelling case for why Phoebus is scummier than sam.samhorn or lazarusmoth. I see some scumminess, but not enough to make him worth lynching.

[xRECKONERx]

Read:

It's a bandwagon of epic proportions.

[ConsonantM]

Statements like this REEK of scum.

---
I have a gut read on Sam as town. (i hate using gut, but it's something which has grown on me over time)

i have a slight scum read on Phoe, but not as much as Laz.