Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Quagmire]

I don't have the time now to post thoughts, because I have to leave for work in less than 5 minutes.

But when I get back (around 3:00 PM Central), I will post my thoughts.

But I'll forewarn you, there aren't really that many, but I have a couple notes down I'll speak about.

[Fishbulb]

Unvote: Quagmire

Alrighty.

[N_lich]

This is a heads-up that I will be away until at least Sunday evening.
I look forward to hearing Quagmire's views.

[Mr Stoofer]

Unvote: Nox

. On a re-read, I think she genuinly doesn't get the point I'm trying to make. That's probably my fault.

[mole]

Well, the other person I was getting bad vibes was from Mr Stoofer. Mostly because of this post:

I think we should concentrate for now on catching scum, rather than excessively elaborate plans such as that in the above post.

Usually it is scum who wants to stifle strategic discussion. It's not like it hurts to discuss as long we don't focus solely on that. Not really enough to go on, though.

Not sure about the whole Nox vs. Mr Stoofer business.

I think that the 'excessively elaborate plans' were the plans to kill with exactly the right number of votes, get the doc to travel back in time to resurrect someone who would have had to have voted the correct way while dead *breathes* so that the person who was lynched would be ressurected if they were plain townie and therefore allowing us to have as many town as possible alive, and hence win the game.

I think it was fairly reasonable to say 'That's a rubbish plan. And now for something completely different *organ music*'

I'll disagree here as well. Saying "Let's talk about something else" doesn't add anything to the discussion unless you're prepared to kick things off by adding some content to the post. Instead Mr Stoofer said "Let's catch scum", and then

Someone

was the first player to post his suspicions. Which Stoofer then didn't like.

My vote stays on SinisterOverlord for now (I don't see anything particularly cautious or considered about his last post), but I'll be watching Mr Stoofer closely as well.

[mathcam]

Okay, due to popular request, and because I'm very pleased, we'll extend the deadline to next Friday, 1 week from this post. That should probably be sufficient.

Official Vote Count:

SinisterOverlord (2, mole, Someone)
Stoofer (1, Nox)

Not Voting: Changling bob, SpeedyKQ, Gaspode, N_lich, Quagmire, Mr Stoofer, Fishbulb, SinisterOverlord

Cam

[SpeedyKQ]

Vote SinisterOverlord.

I'm mostly bothered by his attacking Someone for his stupid comment. My experience is that obviously stupid statements aren't scummy, but those most eager to pounce on them are.

I have mixed feelings about talking strategy. Generally it is a good thing, and we really shouldn't be discouraging it. On the other hand, when I'm mafia, talking about strategy all the time is my favorite way of active lurking - staying involved in the conversation without drawing heat. I suppose we should talk strategy all we want, but stay aware of that tactic.

[Someone]

Wow. Speedy managed to say what I was trying to say for like 3 humungo-posts in like three lines.

Nice... a new deadline. I'm wondering how our game is going to be affected by jeepfest...if possible, I'd like people who are here to make an extra effort not to lurk during these next few days...it would be a shame to see such an exiting game slow down.

I'm willing to participate in a SO or a Stoofer bandwagon, but I must say that I'm more prone to go for Stoofer. The logic that SinisterOverlord posted was faulty, but at least he made an effort to find scum. However, the fact that Mr stoofer agreed readily with him seems more like scum jumping on a bandwagon.

[Changling bob]

I have mixed feelings about talking strategy. Generally it is a good thing, and we really shouldn't be discouraging it. On the other hand, when I'm mafia, talking about strategy all the time is my favorite way of active lurking - staying involved in the conversation without drawing heat. I suppose we should talk strategy all we want, but stay aware of that tactic.

Ah, but now you're talking about strategy

@fishbulb: I realise that what you did and what SO did are different, but the fact that we were prodding you to reveal the info you thought you had, while he sat on his are what I was trying to get at.

@mole: Did you mean to quote me, or are you saying something that I don't quite get? I was attempting to insert content into the conversation in the post you quoted, and was pointing out that the quashing of discussion of Mr Stoofer's that Fishbulb picked up on was fairly justified, and not inherently scummy stifiling of conversation. Could you please clarify your point for me [/stupidity]

[mole]

I don't like the fact that Mr Stoofer said 'That's a rubbish plan. And now for something completely different' when that was the entirety of the post. It's completely meaningless unless you acutally post some content that will start a discussion on another topic.

[Quagmire]

[quote=SinisterOverlord]So because he thinks we should use FOS's, it may be better. Why? You say it would be better, but there's no reasoning. Piling on votes quickly only advantages the mafia - something that happens quickly is usually to their advantage, not the town's. It's also a common scum tactic for when there's a deadline to get who they want lynched.

Since a majority doesn't mean a lynch, I've got no problems with using votes liberally. It allows everyone to see easily exactly where I stand, as votes are tallied by the mod but FOS's aren't, and means things don't have to move very quickly.[/quote]

I completely agree with that statement. It's very simple to go on the internet and retract your votes if you don't feel someone is suspicious. However, I don't find Someone suspicious because of that,

until

:
[quote=Someone's response]What??? This is completely out of context. Firstly, note that it was Mr. Stoofer's idea, and not mine to do so. I was just assuming that was the better plan was to FOS. As you may have noted, there were no objections to the FOS plan, which means that most of the town agreed with it at the time...why am I the only one to be singled out? [/quote]

I find this

very

scummy, because first off, he assumes instantly that the entire town thinks it's a good idea so that he should go along with it, too. Is that not a mafioso's objective to blend in the crowd, not get noticed, and pass by throughout the first couple of days so that he doesn't die? For someone (not someone the username, but someone as in any person) to say that, "Oh yeah, since nobody said anything, that means they all think the same thing, so I'm going to follow that idea to not get caught," catches my eye very quickly.

Not only that, but Someone has been all over the place during the game. “Yeah, that FOS is a good idea.” “No, it’s not.” And he’s also used crap logic and took it back. I don’t like his inconsistencies and the way he’s playing, so because of that, I’m going to

Vote: Someone.

So, those are my thoughts for now. More to come as I read upcoming posts (especially Someone and SinisterOverlord).

[Nox]

Whoa....
(Nox is getting more and more confused as its her first non-newbie game )

Well, from what I understand right now, people are mostly seeing Stoofer, SO and Someone as Scum( All S`s hehe).

Well, For my analysis up to date, I`m still tempted to lean towards the first two. Someone, in my opinion, seemed to have made too much of an effort as to bringing analysis and thought into the game to be scum. What Im trying to say is that scum usually try to lurk

under

the radar, and to blend in. Someone seemed to me as the one most trying to stick out and actually bring something to the game.

Now, I

still

don`t quite understand the 6/3 strategy, but as most people seemed to agree that it was a good plan, and you`re all more experienced than I, I`m going to assume its good. All I really got was the obvious; that the votes were to be separated into one main(6) and one secondary(3) bandwagon. If somebody could explain the concept to me a bit further though, I`d appreciate.

So If I take out Someone, I`m going to say that Stoofer and SO would be the scummiest, If I rely on my overall impression.

Stoofer IMO seemed a bit jumpy with his OMGUS vote without reasoning, and SO, a bit too overractive, for the reasons mentionned on previous posts. It`s a bit late, so I`ll post more about my reasoning tomorrow morning.

[Gaspode]

My apologies for my absence for the last couple of days. Unfortunately, my weekend is going to be just as crazy as my last few days turned out to be. I will most likely read up and post on Monday. Sorry.

[Changling bob]

Well, For my analysis up to date, I`m still tempted to lean towards the first two. Someone, in my opinion, seemed to have made too much of an effort as to bringing analysis and thought into the game to be scum. What Im trying to say is that scum usually try to lurk

under

the radar, and to blend in. Someone seemed to me as the one most trying to stick out and actually bring something to the game.

One of the other options availible to scum is to contribute lots, so as to appear pro-town. Of course, this could obviously then mean that the person you are looking at

is

town, but you need to look at the content as well.

Now, I

still

don`t quite understand the 6/3 strategy, but as most people seemed to agree that it was a good plan, and you`re all more experienced than I, I`m going to assume its good. All I really got was the obvious; that the votes were to be separated into one main(6) and one secondary(3) bandwagon. If somebody could explain the concept to me a bit further though, I`d appreciate.

The idea behind this was (I think) that we should split the votes so that any people who are dead, especially scum, can't actually influence our lynches. If we put all of our votes on a single person, and then that person gets retroactively night-killed, then EmpTyger will be the only person who influences who gets lynched (as he's the only one who's dead now), and we don't know his alignment, and might not have much chance of finding out, seeing as (a) there may not be a cop, and (b) he's dead. Therefore, by having a second set of votes on someone else, we will lynch one of the people we find scummiest as a town, even if our first choice gets killed night one from the future. I think.

Hope that helps

At the moment, the general feeling seems to be blowing due Someone, although Speedy makes a good point about people who jump on honest stupidity (no offense Someone), but at the moment I haven't quite sorted out my thoughts on that yet.

I think at the moment I'm leaning marginally towards SO, due to his complete lack of action, then a huge post, then drops of the radar again. I realise that it's the weekend, but the whole way he's been posting (or not as the case may be (and is)) is grating a little with me, although this is probably more gut feeling than actually bad posting habits.

Hmmm... Well I'm still not any closer to picking anyone to vote yet

[SinisterOverlord]

Sorry. Many shifts at work. Just got in, it's past 1 in the morning and I'm too tired to post a decent post. I'll be back for a proper post in about 10-12ish hours.

[Nox]

For the second proper post .

Changling Bob: Thank you, that was really helpful.

Now, on with a little bit of further reasoning...


Well, I've always gotten the impression that eagerness to lynch was a scum-tell. While pro-town people usually linger in incertainty before lynching, Mafia already know who's their ennemies.

In my opinion, Changling Bob, mole, Someone and Speedy seem to me as the least scummy of the bunch.

I'm going to

FOS: SinisterOverlord

.
I'm not going to unvote Stoofer just yet. His only response was that he thought I honestly didnt understand his point. I haven't heard much from him, and he seems to be popping in and out of nowheres. Seems to me like he's been lurking 'round.

[Changling bob]

No problem Nox.

However, I think saying that Mr Stoofer is lurking is a little odd. A quick analysis shows he has a post count roughly in the middle of the current range, having 13 posts, with a maximum of 20 (Someone) and a minimum of 6 (Quagmire). Although these numbers are both over the whole thread, and possibly wrong (I don't trust my memory and I'm too lazy to note a quick search down), Mr Stoofer isn't really lurking that much. And in terms of recent posts, posting always tends to go down over the weekends.

[Nox]

Well, maybe its just an impression?
Or perhaps his posts are simply shorter, I don't know.

[Fishbulb]

I have mixed feelings about talking strategy. Generally it is a good thing, and we really shouldn't be discouraging it. On the other hand, when I'm mafia, talking about strategy all the time is my favorite way of active lurking - staying involved in the conversation without drawing heat. I suppose we should talk strategy all we want, but stay aware of that tactic.

No, I say go for it. I don't like restricting anything anyone wants to discuss. It can all be used later.

If a player just talks about strategies that never seem to help the town, they are probably scum. If someone makes useless comments all the time, probably scum.

I think this game is best played where everyone is free to say whatever they want, not just what a couple loud players dictate is worthy discussion. It's not like if a player makes a worthless comment that everyone else has to drop what they are thinking and focus solely on that. Let them do it, no reason to help scum by saying what they should or shouldn't post.

[Fishbulb]

However, I think saying that Mr Stoofer is lurking is a little odd. A quick analysis shows he has a post count roughly in the middle of the current range, having 13 posts, with a maximum of 20 (Someone) and a minimum of 6 (Quagmire). Although these numbers are both over the whole thread, and possibly wrong (I don't trust my memory and I'm too lazy to note a quick search down), Mr Stoofer isn't really lurking that much. And in terms of recent posts, posting always tends to go down over the weekends.

Anyone else think it is a little odd that this is the fourth time Changling bob has come to Mr Stoofer's defense? As I said earlier, I find it much more beneficial to let the accused wiggle their own way out. Maybe it's a simple as Changling bob stated, but let him defend it. And four times? He hasn't defended anyone else even once that I noticed.

Actually, looking back through both of their posts, it seems quite suspicious. Go do it right now (at the bottom, change it to show All Posts from Changling bob, and then Mr Stoofer). They do have a little "clash" about whether or not to read the previous game, but it's starting to look pretty staged to me.

[Changling bob]

Whatever I say now will be viewed with suspicion, but here goes anyway.

Anyone else think it is a little odd that this is the fourth time Changling bob has come to Mr Stoofer's defense? As I said earlier, I find it much more beneficial to let the accused wiggle their own way out. Maybe it's a simple as Changling bob stated, but let him defend it. And four times? He hasn't defended anyone else even once that I noticed.

Actually, looking back through both of their posts, it seems quite suspicious. Go do it right now (at the bottom, change it to show All Posts from Changling bob, and then Mr Stoofer). They do have a little "clash" about whether or not to read the previous game, but it's starting to look pretty staged to me.

Tell you what, you say something that I don't find scummy, then have people say "that's scummy", and I'll come to your defense.

Maybe I don't play mafia hard enough, but I never want to lynch a pro-town player, for obvious reasons. Therefore, I will defend things I don't think are scummy.

However, after Nox's post about Mr Stoofer lurking, and now you pointing out to look through my and Stoofer's posts, I did. He's not lurking per ce, but his content is lacking somewhat. Only one post of any really size, and lots of 'yeah but no but' posts.

Right now I think that Someone and SO are most dubious, but I don't know which one I find more dubious. And because I think these two are most scummy, I find everyone else less scummy, and will defend them if I find it necessary or even just wise. Or justifiable. Or something.

[mathcam]

Official Vote Count:

SinisterOverlord (3, mole, Someone, Speedy)
Stoofer (1, Nox)
Someone (1, Quagmire)

Not Voting: Changling bob, Gaspode, N_lich, Mr Stoofer, Fishbulb, SinisterOverlord

Cam

[Mr Stoofer]

On a re-read, no-one jumps out at me as the obvious best candidate for a day 1 lynch. The thing that I noticed most was somehting that I and others have already pointed out, namely SO's early lurking. As I understand post 109, he is saying that he was following the thread but not posting. And his next post makes clear that he had had lots of thoughts to contribute but had chosen not to until called out for lurking. That is not a pro-town strategy.

This is not much to go on, but this is day 1 after all. So I'm prepared to

vote: SinisterOverlord

.

The only other odd thing was Nox's accusation that I am lurking. I found that totally bizarre.

[Nox]

Like I said, your post count may be normal, but the content of them seemed to be lacking somewhat.


(I will be away for 10 days, starting tomorrow. Just to let you know I'm not dead )

[Changling bob]

I still think that SO and Someone are the most scummy looking. However I am not going to vote for either of them. This is the last time I'm going to get internet access until Friday. So I might get on before the deadline. Or I might not. In the intrest of fairness, I am refusing to vote someone as circumstances will have changed by Friday. Similarly, please don't lynch me