Mini 912 - Little Golden Mafia (OVER)

[Trumpet of Doom]

Between {peanutman, ML, lobster}, I think peanutman's the most likely scum, which might be partly because his play here is reminiscent of his scum play in Mafia 102 (link's on my wiki page, if you're interested; it's also my only scum game in the last 12 months) - that said, I haven't seen his town play and am not likely to get a chance to do so in the next few days. I'll take a closer look at the other two at some point.

There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here.
1) You say I'm most likely scum because my play is reminiscent of my scum play in a different game, even though you admit that you've never read any of my other games (how could you even make that comparison?)
2) Related to the first point, you lay out a bold statement (that I am most likely scum), and then qualify that your reasoning for it isn't so strong and that you won't be able to follow up on this for a few days. It is manipulative to make such a statement at this point in the game, followed by weak reasoning and no desire to confirm it.
3) You claim I'm the scummiest without even looking at ML or Lobster. You can't judge amongst 3 people by only looking at one of them.

1. That's not the only reason (see: "partly" because), just the one that's quickest to express (because it means I don't have to go find anything else). By the end of this week, I should be able to put together a reasonably decent case based on your play here - but probably not before, I'm a tad swamped IRL. (Hell, I might as well just declare

LA until Friday.

)
2. "No desire?" Where the hell are you getting this? Lack of ability at present, I can see and will freely admit to. Lack of inclination, OTOH, I'm pretty sure I've never said or implied - and your suggestion that I have does not work in your favor.
3. I have a read on you, not on the other two (hell, half the time I can't even remember lobster's in the game), and it's a scum read, so if deadline was in five minutes, I'd vote you. You've called into question the strength of said scum read, but I'd point out that even if you're right and it is only a weak scum read, weak still trumps null.

Also, of note: You've played with ToD-scum as recently as or more than anyone else. If anyone in this game knows me as scum, it's you.

No votes have been placed.

With 6 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Trumpet of Doom V/LA to 2/26/10.

[lobstermania]

@lobstermania: you're ISO is pretty short and there's not a lot to go off, so who do you think is scum?

I am working on a post right now. I should have it posted by tomorrow night.
(Maybe even tonight, if I have any energy after work.)

[totallynotmafia]

Ok, my thoughts for the moment:

ToD:

My top pick as scum:

1) Phlight's case on him (post 212) makes a lot of sense (except for the bussing bit).

2) His votes on DS's and PJ's wagons were both "I agree with such and such and so I'll vote too" votes, so he's jumping on wagons without having to make his own case which may be questioned after the mis-lynch.

3) After DS's mason claim Trumpet was saying that DS should say who his mason partner was. His reasoning was that with two confirmed town they would draw the nightkills away from possible cops or docs, but it's just as likely that it would narrow down possible cops or docs for the NK (with the other mason outed that's one less person who may be a cop or doc), and this may have been what ToD was thinking. Essentially he's dressing up his rolefishing in a pro-town way.

Peanutman:

Playing a really good game if he is scum as he's coming off as fairly pro-town, at least to me. The one problem I have is when we were all waiting for DS to clarify his claim, Peanutman started getting impatient and voted for PJ. Now, I initially thought this was because Peanut was the other mason, which would make perfect sense...but now that we know he's not it makes that behaviour quite strange...why would he be voting for someone else when everything was left up in the air and DS could have easily been scum with a poor claim...why the need to get the suspicion generated on someone else in this period? Perhaps Peanutman is scum and hence knew that DS's claim was true, and thus felt the need to get the suspicion moving on somebody else, all the while under the guise of being pro-town as he said inactivity is what the scum want.

MacavityLock:

He seems to think I could be scum, or is trying to put that idea in people's heads. I guess I can understand people suspecting me of being SK, I can see how that would make sense, but thinking I'm scum means you're thinking I took a massive risk in what would be a good position in LyLo...hoping that a vig or sk wouldn't CC and screw the whole thing. This makes me think he's trying to get a townie to vote for me and then scum can jump on and win, but I guess it could also just be a townie exploring all possible scenarios. There's not a lot to go off with you either Macavity, so could you post who you think is scum?

Lobstermania:

Could be getting an easy ride through the game as scum because theres been enough townies on each wagon that he hasn't even had to vote...like I said I need to hear some actual scum-hunting from him.

Right now I'm torn between a possible Tod-lobstermania scumgroup or a Peanutman-Macavitylock scumgroup.

I've been wrong five times already in this game though so I'm in no way confident. SC, I'd really like to hear what you think.

[StrangerCoug]

I've been wrong five times already in this game though so I'm in no way confident. SC, I'd really like to hear what you think.

I think you shouldn't beat yourself up. I don't consider myself very good either.

Anywho, you're most likely the SK (setup reasons and the vague reasoning for killing dramonic), so lynching you is the wrong answer for town.

I have to agree with your case on Trumpet of Doom as most likely Mafia because of his sloppy voting, and I want to call lobstermania lurking scum. If you want a college dissertation, I will give a college dissertation, but I'd rather the town not rely on "follow the confirmed townie".

[lobstermania]

Sorry about all the delays and absenses. I have been following the thread and tried to throw in my comments or questions when applicable.
Going over the mass-claim, I think I've figured out the scum. As it stands, we have:

StrangerCoug (Mason) - Country Mouse
Trumpet of Doom (Town) - Little Red Hen
peanutman (Town) - Big Bird
totallynotmafia (Town Vig) - Little Girl from a Sleep Story
lobstermania (Town) - Tawny Scrawny Lion
MacavityLock (Town) - Sam the Firehouse Cat

Things that don't look right to me: peanutman and MacavityLock

Everyone claimed Little Golden Book characters or titles except peanutman, who claimed Big Bird. To me, this looks like a fake-claim. MacavityLock claimed Sam the Firehouse Cat, which is the only claim so far with a mode of transportation in it. I agree with the discussion that mafia kills are more violent (run over), and vig kills would be more discreet.
I think peanutman is scum and made a fake-claim to hide his true title (probably The Good Humor Man). MacavityLock is the other scum, based on his title.

Vote: MacavityLock

[lobstermania]

Oh wait,

Unvote

! Sorry, I forgot we were holding off on votes due to LyLo.

[peanutman]

Lobstermania, this link should confirm to you that Big Bird is part of the Little Golden Book series (check the top of the cover). I was surprised at first to get this role, so I understand your skepticism.

http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Brings-Sprin ... 0307020193

[MacavityLock]

lobster, that's a pretty awful analysis. First of all, having known nothing about my character/book, I found these two quotes about Sam the Firehouse Cat via Google: "Sweet little story about a heroic cat that saves two other cats from a fire." and "Sam lived in the firehouse and would go down the pole." (On a lighter note, this mafiascum thread is now the 10th highest Google result for the phrase Sam the Firehouse Cat, at least to me. Awesome.) As far as I can tell, Sam doesn't drive the firetruck. That would just be silly.

Secondly, why wouldn't I have fake-claimed to something that has no connection to transportation? I easily had the opportunity to do so, as I was last to claim.

Thirdly, once I saw all claims, I checked them all via Google search myself. Why didn't you check, re: Big Bird?

Fourthly, where are you getting Good Humor Man from?

Lastly, if you think peanut fake-claimed, why not vote him over me?

This is pretty horrendous analysis, especially since it is solely based on name claims, which are notoriously unhelpful in finding scum. If this is your entire promised analysis, I'm pretty tempted to vote you.

This is not to say I don't owe this game something. It's been pretty busy for me, as I've been in the process of a move. I don't feel I can rule anyone out as scum right now, and I probably need to really dig in to figure things out.

[peanutman]

Having more time to address and respond to Lobster's "big post", here are my thoughts.

I am working on a post right now. I should have it posted by tomorrow night.

The fact that he said he was "working on a post" at the moment, but that it might take a day to complete, I expected much more. I can't imagine he worked very hard at it. Listed the roles, didn't do a quick google search on any of them, assumed Big Bird wasn't a LGB, made a weird assumption regarding a mode of transportation.

If all of this isn't enough, he then votes in Lylo. A second post immediately follows to unvote. But a vote at this stage should be placed carefully, not just because someone's claimed role is subjectively related to a mode of transportation seemed to be used in the NKs.

Going over the mass-claim, I think I've figured out the scum.

Seriously? You've been "following the thread", yet in lylo, your only scum-hunting is to quickly scan the claimed roles and say what first comes out of your head reading them (and actually your only scum-hunt of the game!)? So much that you place a crucial vote on that (your second vote of the game, first non-RVS)?

If I were to vote at this instant, my vote would definitely be for Lobstermania. However, I will wait for Trumpet of Doom to come back. I'd also like a response from Lobster about this post as well as my case on 273.

[totallynotmafia]

Firstly SC I don't know how to convince you that I'm not a SK but I guess I'll worry about that more when we're out of LyLo.

Secondly I'm pretty sure scum lied about their stories as none of those books have an obvious connection to the ran over flavour. However this makes me suspicious of Peanutman as scum would have to pick a fairly obscure book in order to avoid being CC'd, and Big Bird seems a bit obscure to me. I think it would be silly to place a vote on this alone though.

Thirdly lobster's post makes me more confident about the ToD-lobster scumgroup scenario, but I'd be much more willing to vote for Trumpet over lobster as I've already been wrong about one lurker in this game.

So I'm still most likely going to vote for trumpet, let's see what he says when he gets back.

[StrangerCoug]

You didn't watch Sesame Street as a little kid, did you, totallynotmafia?

[totallynotmafia]

lol I did watch Sesame Street, I never read it though!

[Trumpet of Doom]

Case on peanutman:

one thing that Dramonic first raised but then got lost with the mason-business is Panzerjager's calling for a claim with only 4 votes on DS. That's an early call for a claim IMO and definitely requires some explaining. At that early stage, it's just rolefishing more than anything else.

I think I mentioned this before, but asking for a claim with only 4 votes isn't actually what Panzer did. What he did was ask for a wagon to a claim. So we've got misrepresentation here. (And then the "first serious rolefishing accusation tends scum" thing... my brief scan of recently completed games seems to indicate that scum do, in fact, seem to make the game's first fishing accusation more often than chance might suggest, but I'll still take it with a grain of salt.)

I also don't like the way that Phlight jumped on the first person who didn't agree that the hypoclaim was a good idea.

Trumpet of Doom doesn't want a hypoclaim because he's scum.

Does this mean that anyone who doesn't want a hypoclaim is scum? I think's it's the wrong approach here. Phlight, if you had proposed the idea first and gotten discussion on its merits, it would have been more valuable. And then you voting for Trumpet right after your hypoclaim is just very odd. Do you expect all those who hypoclaim to then vote for their "hypo-suspect" or whatever? *snip*

Claim makes sense, and I like what people are saying about Panzer's 133. Unvote; Vote: Panzerjager. (Should be L-2, for people who care.)

This, however, is much more suspcious. TNM has already brought up the odd and misleading L-2 comment. But the other thing I don't like is that he adds his vote near the end, echoing everyone else comments without adding anything new. I get the feeling he knows the lynch is inevitable and he's best to be on the wagon. Also, there's something not right about the "for people who care" comment. What did you mean by that Trumpet? If, as you say, the L-2 comment was an innocent mistake, what were you looking to add with the second part of it?

I'd hope that even by that point, it was clear that Phlight and I weren't scumpartners. Since we didn't have reason to suspect a second scum faction (=SK), trying to cast suspicion on both of us seems unwarranted.

I agree completely with a massclaim.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs
would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

That being said, no one throw a vote yet!!! With 3 to lynch, a misplaced vote could end the game with the 2 maf pilling on.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

Hold on. Is there a possibility to have a regular 3-member mafia team with a townie who has a PR that would break this situation (i.e. can't be lynched, or townie with 2 votes)? Would that work with the balance? I bring this up because I've never seen a 2-member mafia team in a mini game, it seems from the outset rather unbalanced.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

Between {peanutman, ML, lobster}, I think peanutman's the most likely scum, which might be partly because his play here is reminiscent of his scum play in Mafia 102 (link's on my wiki page, if you're interested; it's also my only scum game in the last 12 months) - that said, I haven't seen his town play and am not likely to get a chance to do so in the next few days. I'll take a closer look at the other two at some point.

There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here.
1) You say I'm most likely scum because my play is reminiscent of my scum play in a different game, even though you admit that you've never read any of my other games (how could you even make that comparison?)
2) Related to the first point, you lay out a bold statement (that I am most likely scum), and then qualify that your reasoning for it isn't so strong and that you won't be able to follow up on this for a few days. It is manipulative to make such a statement at this point in the game, followed by weak reasoning and

no desire to confirm it.

3) You claim I'm the scummiest without even looking at ML or Lobster. You can't judge amongst 3 people by only looking at one of them.

-------

Case on Lobstermania :

- Very little posting (without much content compared to other players). Has been cruising along without putting much visible effort into the game.
- Has inquired about the NKs a few times

Also, no one has brought up the two night kills. Is it too early to consider it?

The only part that bothers me is the two PR's NK'd N1.

- He random-voted for TNF on Jan. 20th, acknowledge that RVS was over on Jan 26th., and then, on Feb. 3rd

I'm going to keep my vote on TotallyNotMafia for now. He seems a bit trigger happy and that's not sitting well.

From his RVS-vote to this post, he didn't mention TNF once. Why wouldn't he have unvoted when he had acknowledged the end of RVS? He didn't mention any lingering suspicion on TNF until Feb 3rd. (By the way, following the post that I quoted, he has posted a total of 5 times without really contributing to the scum-hunting).
- Promised posts twice, having delivered late without much content both times.
- Has only voted once in the whole game, the whole 3 days!!!!!! And it was his RVS-vote.

I am cautious about placing a vote just yet, given that we are in MYLO, put he is definitely my top pick for scum.

Bold: Misrepresentation, as pointed out at the top of this page.

In general: Does anyone else see a problem here? He says, "There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here," which sounds like he's building up to "you should be lynched for this post alone," then he goes and builds a case on lobster, stating that lobster, not me, is his top pick for scum.

---------------------------------------------------

After DS's mason claim Trumpet was saying that DS should say who his mason partner was. His reasoning was that with two confirmed town they would draw the nightkills away from possible cops or docs, but it's just as likely that it would narrow down possible cops or docs for the NK (with the other mason outed that's one less person who may be a cop or doc), and this may have been what ToD was thinking. Essentially he's dressing up his rolefishing in a pro-town way.

Counterargument: If I was trying to rolefish, I wouldn't have argued so damn hard against the hypoclaim. I'm a beast when I can get everything broken down to a logic puzzle (see D6 of Suzumiya Haruhi for a shining example from me-town), and a hypoclaim would have given me so much to work with as scum that there's no way I'd want to pass up that opportunity.

Question to all, but especially peanutman: Does metagame information hold any value to you? (SC, you don't need to answer this - I'm reasonably confident you'll say no.)

...wow. lobster's post is not good at all. Couple this with the townread I'm starting to develop on ML, and I'm feeling ready to call scum as {peanutman, lobster} mafia, TNM SK.

[peanutman]

My response to ToD's case

I think I mentioned this before, but asking for a claim with only 4 votes isn't actually what Panzer did. What he did was ask for a wagon to a claim. So we've got misrepresentation here.

Let's look at what PJ said before throwing out the word misrepresentation.

I think he needs some more pressure and a claim about now.

You have done plenty to warrant pressure and a vote

Second quote immediately corrected with :

warrant a claim..not a vote.

Lynch him. If we mislynch, at least his mason partner can be confirmed and help us in lylo. It's a good scumclaim.

Looking at all the first three quotes, are you seriously telling me, ToD, that he was asking for a wagon that would eventually lead to a claim? Also note that there were no votes that were placed between his three first quotes. Whose misrepresenting whom? Or, rather, who hasn't read the thread before accusing someone of misrepresenting? To add to it all, the fact that he called to lynch a claimed PR immediately after did seem like scum trying to find a PR. I stand by my accusations then because I believe that PJ acted scummily and caused his own demise with his play. Note too that others believed with me, and so my accusations on him weren't out of left field.

I'd hope that even by that point, it was clear that Phlight and I weren't scumpartners. Since we didn't have reason to suspect a second scum faction (=SK), trying to cast suspicion on both of us seems unwarranted.

I never claimed that you were scum-partners. I raised suspicions on two things independantly. Obviously, not all of our suspicions our correct. But for you to just disregard my whole argument because "it was clear" that Phlight and you weren't scumpartners is just avoiding the main argument.
However, what really bothers me about this point on your case is that you misquoted me to better your argument. If you read the whole post, you will see that I also cast suspicion on Dramonic. According to your logic, that must mean that I think you are all scum partners. Correct?

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

At this point in the game, with 2 scum, 1 confirmed townie and 2 unknowns, I would rather have more information than less. As part of the uninformed majority I would like as much information as possible to find scum. By revealing the PR (vig or SK), it increases my chances of picking scum from 50% to 66%. I will take those odds in lylo any day.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

But then Lobster still threw a vote. I don't think the reminder is unwarranted. On a side note, don't we all want to look town?

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

As I said, I was thinking through the set-up and I've never seen a 2-scum team in a mini. If you feel it's scummy to suggest it, that's up to you. I just want to make sure that we've thought through every scenario.

Bold: Misrepresentation, as pointed out at the top of this page.

In general: Does anyone else see a problem here? He says, "There are quite a few things wrong with how you portrayed me here," which sounds like he's building up to "you should be lynched for this post alone," then he goes and builds a case on lobster, stating that lobster, not me, is his top pick for scum.

I agree that my comment that you bolded wasn't fair, I couldn't make that argument. But I hope you realize that your earlier claim that my comment was disingenuous isn't fair either. The counterproductive and scummy is a more subjective question.
As for your general statement, I don't see a problem. I am not close-minded to assume that if someone raises suspicion on me, they must be scum. Townies make bad arguments all the time, in all games. I know that I've made some weak ones in this game.


Finally, regarding meta reads, I don't hold too much weight to it. I mainly feel it can be manipulated by everyone. Someone can point to their meta in certain games to support a claim or their way of playing or scum can use meta to mislead as well.
ToD, I feel you might be looking to my answer and thinking, "I've played with him as scum, he doesn't want me to look at meta, it could be because he's scum", but there's nothing I can do about that, it's how I've always felt about meta. I'm always wary of why people are pointing or looking at meta.

---

Still waiting for a response from Lobster. I will vote for him tomorrow afternoon unless he provides a great post and addresses the main accusations against him.

[Trumpet of Doom]

I think I mentioned this before, but asking for a claim with only 4 votes isn't actually what Panzer did. What he did was ask for a wagon to a claim. So we've got misrepresentation here.

Let's look at what PJ said before throwing out the word misrepresentation.

I think he needs some more pressure and a claim about now.

You have done plenty to warrant pressure and a vote

Second quote immediately corrected with :

warrant a claim..not a vote.

Lynch him. If we mislynch, at least his mason partner can be confirmed and help us in lylo. It's a good scumclaim.

Looking at all the first three quotes, are you seriously telling me, ToD, that he was asking for a wagon that would eventually lead to a claim?

Pressure usually takes the form of votes, yes?

To add to it all, the fact that he called to lynch a claimed PR immediately after did seem like scum trying to find a PR.

I agree. That wasn't the part of your post I was objecting to.

I'd hope that even by that point, it was clear that Phlight and I weren't scumpartners. Since we didn't have reason to suspect a second scum faction (=SK), trying to cast suspicion on both of us seems unwarranted.

I never claimed that you were scum-partners. I raised suspicions on two things independantly. Obviously, not all of our suspicions our correct. But for you to just disregard my whole argument because "it was clear" that Phlight and you weren't scumpartners is just avoiding the main argument.

The right way to deal with a situation like that: "Okay, X and Y probably aren't scumpartners. Assuming one scumteam, it only makes sense for me to really be worried about one being scum, and right now the one that I'm more worried by is X. If Y does more scummy things, that might change, but for now, I'm thinking X and not Y is scum." Note, of course, that it's possible for both players in that scenario to be town.

However, what really bothers me about this point on your case is that you misquoted me to better your argument. If you read the whole post, you will see that I also cast suspicion on Dramonic. According to your logic, that must mean that I think you are all scum partners. Correct?

That's a huge leap in your logic. There wasn't anything preventing dramonic and Phlight from being scum together. There wasn't anything preventing dramonic and me from being scum together. That whole debacle early D2 should have shown that Phlight and I weren't scum together.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

At this point in the game, with 2 scum, 1 confirmed townie and 2 unknowns, I would rather have more information than less. As part of the uninformed majority I would like as much information as possible to find scum. By revealing the PR (vig or SK), it increases my chances of picking scum from 50% to 66%. I will take those odds in lylo any day.

You're missing the point. Everyone else agreed to massclaim, but they all sounded like "sure, why not" - well, except maybe SC. Simply put, with what we already knew of the setup, massclaim wasn't going to be terribly helpful about what roles were in the game and would really have only told us books (okay, and given us a lead on

vig/

SK). Your eagerness was unnecessary from a town point of view.

But then Lobster still threw a vote.

True; that's a point against lobster, but it doesn't help you.

On a side note, don't we all want to look town?

Town shouldn't need to try to look town. If it happens, great; if it doesn't, oh well. Scum, on the other hand, do need to try to look town - that's actually one of the more reliable tells I've run into: if it looks forced (or unnecessary, or like something a townie shouldn't need to say), it probably is.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

As I said, I was thinking through the set-up and I've never seen a 2-scum team in a mini. If you feel it's scummy to suggest it, that's up to you. I just want to make sure that we've thought through every scenario.

Well, if you haven't seen one, you haven't looked hard enough - it's my understanding that town's lost every 2:10 vanilla run on this site, I've heard about 2:2:8 setups, and I've (officially) played in a 9:2:1 setup, so such things are by no means unheard of.

But the scummy part is the role suggestion - there's really no role that could stop endgame from occurring right now with a 3-man scumteam: bulletproof townies can still be lynched, unlynchable townies can still be NK'd, we would have known about a doublevoter by now (and I'm not convinced it would stop endgame anyway), and I don't think there are any other options. I just want to make sure you've thought through every scenario ( ).

As for your general statement, I don't see a problem. I am not close-minded to assume that if someone raises suspicion on me, they must be scum. Townies make bad arguments all the time, in all games. I know that I've made some weak ones in this game.

My issue is, that's the second time this game you've said someone's a stronger suspect for what I feel is a weaker reason (the first was 204; for this one, I'm not completely sold on the "lurkers are scum" idea, and your post came before lobster's awful 279).

Finally, regarding meta reads, I don't hold too much weight to it.

...figures. Guess what one of my favorite methods of defense as town is.

I mainly feel it can be manipulated by everyone.

Yeah, you'd think, but I'm living proof of the opposite.

Still waiting for a response from Lobster. I will vote for him tomorrow afternoon unless he provides a great post and addresses the main accusations against him.

Eh, I'll take a lobster lynch (with or without bussing) if I can't get one on peanut.

[Riceballtail]

Prodding MacavityLock and Lobstermania.

[MacavityLock]

Prodded, sorry. I still have open questions to peanut from my 274 and to lobster from my 282.

I'm working on a re-read now.

[MacavityLock]

So, no activity in 36 hours since I last posted, huh?

Here are my not very well formatted notes from my re-read:

TNM

In post 90, TNM jumps heavily on DS, who is SC-town.
In 155, TNM jumps off DS/SC onto Panzer right away before SC talks about mason-townie confirmation.
In 195 and 201, TNM follows Phlight's hypo onto ToD, then immediately jumps off when BaB Tracker flips.
TNM's 208 is pure appeasement.

ToD

In 91, ToD also jumps heavily on DS/SC-town.
In 95, ToD tries to out other mason.
In 111, it looks like ToD is assuming that there are definitely masons in the game and does not consider that DS might be lying about a mason claim.
In 145,

Phlight: Pretty much the only way I can see the masons being our only PRs (if this game's balanced) is if there are only 2 scum. If we assume 3 scum (and I haven't seen a good reason not to), we basically have to have another PR for balance.

More assumption of masons, plus first instance of anyone bringing up 2 maf, which is really interesting in light of what we know now.
In 169, we have the ToD Panzer-vote that was L-1, while claiming it as L-2. Still unsure as to whether or not this was just a mistake.
In 287 and 289, ToD makes a couple of horrible arguments against peanut:

I agree completely with a massclaim.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs
would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

That being said, no one throw a vote yet!!! With 3 to lynch, a misplaced vote could end the game with the 2 maf pilling on.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

Hold on. Is there a possibility to have a regular 3-member mafia team with a townie who has a PR that would break this situation (i.e. can't be lynched, or townie with 2 votes)? Would that work with the balance? I bring this up because I've never seen a 2-member mafia team in a mini game, it seems from the outset rather unbalanced.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

I don't see any of these as scumtells. Why is a setup the 3 member maf with a town vote manip PR "not a possibility"? This seems a strong reaction. Why is the suggestion of the setup scummy?

Peanut

In 143, peanut seems to distract from the mason discussion to vote Panzer.
In 150, peanut blows up at TNM's no point post, a massive overreaction.
Peanut's focus on kill flavor begins in 226, and continues in 246, which is when I first really picked up on it.
In 288,

I agree that my comment that you bolded wasn't fair, I couldn't make that argument.

Why include it in your original post if you can't make the argument?

Lobster

In 168, Lobster doesn't comment on Panzer's 133 while staying away from his lynch. At this point, 133 was a main point in the Panzer discussion, while lobster avoids that entirely and focuses on 77 and the "pressure until he claims" stuff. Selective deafness is scummy.
I already pointed out the awfulness of 279.
lobster is a definite lurker.

----

The thing I noticed most about TNM is his quickly changing his mind, quite often throughout the game. I definitely read his play as scum, and I agree that SK is pretty likely.

I'm still pretty torn about the other 3. All have legitimate points against them. The way ToD and peanut have been going, it doesn't seem like they'd be a scum team, so I think I'm leaning towards a ToD-lobster team.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm just waiting on when we're ready to vote. Nobody's confirmed from where I'm standing, so I am at a disadvantage, but I'm still leaning heavily towards Trumpet of Doom being scum. I want to call peanutman his scumbuddy, but lobstermania is still a good pick for scum also.

[Trumpet of Doom]

In 91, ToD also jumps heavily on DS/SC-town.

90 was my longest post attacking DS, sure; I'm not sure I'd call it heavy, but whatever.

In 111, it looks like ToD is assuming that there are definitely masons in the game and does not consider that DS might be lying about a mason claim.

In 128, I explicitly said I was trying to leave room for a planned claim by two scumpartners. 111 leaves room for a planned fakeclaim, but the point I was trying to make was that whether or not DS was telling the truth, we pretty much had to have at least one other PR.

In 145,

Phlight: Pretty much the only way I can see the masons being our only PRs (if this game's balanced) is if there are only 2 scum. If we assume 3 scum (and I haven't seen a good reason not to), we basically have to have another PR for balance.

More assumption of masons, plus first instance of anyone bringing up 2 maf, which is really interesting in light of what we know now.

That paragraph was a response to Phlight's 129:

No, you cannot assume that there are other power roles worth protecting.

Let's say the masons are the only power roles we have because there is no guarantee that we have others:

I invite you to explain to me how 3:9 with town's only PRs being a pair of confirmed masons is at all balanced. (And I still wasn't assuming DS was telling the truth.)

In 287 and 289, ToD makes a couple of horrible arguments against peanut:

I agree completely with a massclaim.

Overeager. While I could have cared less if we massclaimed, I figured I could guess the roles left alive on my own (2 mafia, SK, mason, 2 VTs
would have been my bet). The eagerness in peanut's post sounds like he's looking for useful PRs to kill.

That being said, no one throw a vote yet!!! With 3 to lynch, a misplaced vote could end the game with the 2 maf pilling on.

Yeah. We know. There's no reason to say it unless you're trying to look town.

Hold on. Is there a possibility to have a regular 3-member mafia team with a townie who has a PR that would break this situation (i.e. can't be lynched, or townie with 2 votes)? Would that work with the balance? I bring this up because I've never seen a 2-member mafia team in a mini game, it seems from the outset rather unbalanced.

That's not a possibility, and your suggestion of it is disingenuous, counterproductive, and scummy.

I don't see any of these as scumtells.

"Overeager" is sort of a subset of "trying to look town," which is the only subtle tell I can consistently catch scum with (scum being really obvious doesn't count). The last one... see below.

Why is a setup the 3 member maf with a town vote manip PR "not a possibility"?

Because in all probability (as I explained in 289), we would have figured out its existence by the start of D3: we would have seen a doublevoter or a voteless player by this point (and been able to infer the existence of a vote thief because someone would have looked like a doublevoter or a voteless player). BPs can still be lynched, unlynchable townies can still be NK'd... if you have any other ideas, I'm all ears.

Why is the suggestion of the setup scummy?

It's counterproductive and, if we take it seriously, demoralizing: It suggests that if we mislynch, we will lose the game immediately. That's only true if we lynch the SK - if we lynch anyone else, there will be a N3.

[totallynotmafia]

The thing I noticed most about TNM is his quickly changing his mind, quite often throughout the game. I definitely read his play as scum, and I agree that SK is pretty likely.

I thought you were saying before it was just as likely I was scum as SK, changed your mind after nobody took the bait?

In general: Does anyone else see a problem here?

This kind of question puts up a red flag to me, it's like you're trying to convince others of someones scumminess rather than just make the case yourself. Scum did the same kind of thing in my newbie game when trying to make a case on me.

Counterargument: If I was trying to rolefish, I wouldn't have argued so damn hard against the hypoclaim. I'm a beast when I can get everything broken down to a logic puzzle (see D6 of Suzumiya Haruhi for a shining example from me-town), and a hypoclaim would have given me so much to work with as scum that there's no way I'd want to pass up that opportunity.

This is a very poor counterargument because:

1) You were being voted by Phlight after his hypoclaim, so not voting for him after that would be like an admission of guilt.

2) It seems to me that a mislynch on Phlight is just as good if not better for scum than any rolefishing you may have attained from it.

3) Defending one situation with that of another seems pretty scummy to me also, it's like you thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing after and thought "Well if anyone ever accuses me of of rolefishing I can use the phlight situation to defend it."

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna vote for Trumpet, how do we know how long we have til deadline?

[Trumpet of Doom]

I thought you were saying before it was just as likely I was scum as SK, changed your mind after nobody took the bait?

SK was part of scum, last I checked.

it's like you're trying to convince others of someones scumminess rather than just make the case yourself.

That's what a case is supposed to do, yes?

(Warning: Pretty much everything in the rest of this post will be WIFOM. If you don't like it, oh well - I don't really have other options, since I'm defending myself from WIFOM in the first place.)

Counterargument: If I was trying to rolefish, I wouldn't have argued so damn hard against the hypoclaim. I'm a beast when I can get everything broken down to a logic puzzle (see D6 of Suzumiya Haruhi for a shining example from me-town), and a hypoclaim would have given me so much to work with as scum that there's no way I'd want to pass up that opportunity.

This is a very poor counterargument because:

1) You were being voted by Phlight after his hypoclaim, so not voting for him after that would be like an admission of guilt.

Really? Because apparently Phlight believes the exact opposite. And if it came down to his word vs. yours, I'd probably go with his.

2) It seems to me that a mislynch on Phlight is just as good if not better for scum than any rolefishing you may have attained from it.

Scum want to find and kill PRs. Not that I'm egotistical or anything (okay, I am), but I'd like to think I'm one of the best players on the site at deducing who does and who doesn't have PRs from something like that. And considering that in Phlight's next-to-last post before they got hammered, they said that at least two of a three-player set that included our two masons and myself was scum, I'd absolutely leave them alive to try to get at least one town-driven mislynch.

3) Defending one situation with that of another seems pretty scummy to me also, it's like you thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing after and thought "Well if anyone ever accuses me of of rolefishing I can use the phlight situation to defend it."

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. I "thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing" after... what?

[totallynotmafia]

SK was part of scum, last I checked.

By scum I meant mafia.

That's what a case is supposed to do, yes?

Yes, but it's the appealing to other people with the question I don't like. It's like what Phlight said, it seems more like you're playing to an audience and trying to convince everyone that someone is scum rather than actually trying to find who the scum is.

Really? Because apparently Phlight believes the exact opposite. And if it came down to his word vs. yours, I'd probably go with his.

I mean that whether you are town or scum it would have been stupid to go along with the hypoclaiming after he fake-claimed you, which makes your counterargument moot. And what the? That doesn't make sense to say you would go with his word...he was saying that you were scum for the way you reacted...so what exactly are you saying? The more you defend yourself the more it seems like you're just trying to win an argument, and pulling up anything to explain your actions.

Scum want to find and kill PRs. Not that I'm egotistical or anything (okay, I am), but I'd like to think I'm one of the best players on the site at deducing who does and who doesn't have PRs from something like that. And considering that in Phlight's next-to-last post before they got hammered, they said that at least two of a three-player set that included our two masons and myself was scum, I'd absolutely leave them alive to try to get at least one town-driven mislynch.

But the whole scenario of you going along with the hypoclaim is ridiculous because in everyones eyes at that point he was basically saying he had proof you were scum, I cannot imagine that anyone as scum would ignore that and go along with the hypoclaim.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. I "thought about the Phlight hypoclaiming thing" after... what?

I'm thinking that at some time down the track after the whole hypoclaiming thing you may have thought back on it and thought "that would be a good counterargument to use in case someone accuses me of rolefishing."

Basically the thing I have a problem with is instead of explaining the accused mason rolefishing you defended it with something completely unrelated saying that if you really wanted to rolefish you could have done it with the hypoclaiming. That's like someone defending a murder by saying well if they really wanted to murder someone they could have done it some other time but they didn't. That's a terrible defence imho, and one that I think scum would use when they have no way of defending the initial action.

[MacavityLock]

"Overeager" is sort of a subset of "trying to look town," which is the only subtle tell I can consistently catch scum with (scum being really obvious doesn't count).

Actually, it's a subset of "WIFOM", which you're apparently very good at.

Because in all probability (as I explained in 289), we would have figured out its existence by the start of D3: we would have seen a doublevoter or a voteless player by this point (and been able to infer the existence of a vote thief because someone would have looked like a doublevoter or a voteless player). BPs can still be lynched, unlynchable townies can still be NK'd... if you have any other ideas, I'm all ears.

Oh, I don't think it's likely either. But the certainty with which you said it is what caught my eye.

Why is the suggestion of the setup scummy?

It's counterproductive and, if we take it seriously, demoralizing: It suggests that if we mislynch, we will lose the game immediately. That's only true if we lynch the SK - if we lynch anyone else, there will be a N3.

Not sure I see how that's scummy. We've got to treat it as LYLO at this point, right? We probably have N3, but that still might lead to town loss without any recourse. So, I'm not sure how the setup spec changes anything.

----

The thing I noticed most about TNM is his quickly changing his mind, quite often throughout the game. I definitely read his play as scum, and I agree that SK is pretty likely.

I thought you were saying before it was just as likely I was scum as SK, changed your mind after nobody took the bait?

Actually, I changed my mind after my re-read, where you definitely look like you don't care who gets lynched at all, i.e. playing solo, i.e. SK. I'm not ruling out maf entirely, but SK definitely seems more likely.

[Trumpet of Doom]

Yes, but it's the appealing to other people with the question I don't like. It's like what Phlight said, it seems more like you're playing to an audience and trying to convince everyone that someone is scum rather than actually trying to find who the scum is.

I swear, if people would actually read my completed games, we wouldn't have half of these problems.

I mean that whether you are town or scum it would have been stupid to go along with the hypoclaiming after he fake-claimed you, which makes your counterargument moot.

"Guys, chill out. It's just a hypoclaim, he's not necessarily saying he actually has that result."

And what the? That doesn't make sense to say you would go with his word...he was saying that you were scum for the way you reacted...so what exactly are you saying? The more you defend yourself the more it seems like you're just trying to win an argument, and pulling up anything to explain your actions.

For the way I reacted, yes. How I would have reacted as scum would probably be more likely to make him think I was town. (Does your head hurt yet?)

But the whole scenario of you going along with the hypoclaim is ridiculous because in everyones eyes at that point he was basically saying he had proof you were scum, I cannot imagine that anyone as scum would ignore that and go along with the hypoclaim.

Apparently you haven't read my only game as scum in the past 12 months. I barely even cared that I was getting lynched.

Here's what my thought process might have looked like if I was scum: "Oh hey, Phlight's suggesting we hypoclaim. This is awesome! I can get so much to work with from this! ...wait, he's saying he tracked me to B&B last night? (if I didn't make the kill) Okay, I know he's not a tracker, and if people get on me for that, I can just say he's not actually claiming he had that result. (if I did make the kill) Hm. If he's a tracker, I'm SOL at this point; hopefully he isn't, but I can't go too overboard on trying to discredit him because I really would like the hypoclaim to happen and then hope I don't get lynched. Let's see what I can do. (if I expect my partner to be able to get something useful out of the hypoclaim regardless of my survival) Sure, let's see what happens."

I'm thinking that at some time down the track after the whole hypoclaiming thing you may have thought back on it and thought "that would be a good counterargument to use in case someone accuses me of rolefishing."

Perhaps. Even so, can you argue that what I said was wrong?

Basically the thing I have a problem with is instead of explaining the accused mason rolefishing you defended it with something completely unrelated saying that if you really wanted to rolefish you could have done it with the hypoclaiming. That's like someone defending a murder by saying well if they really wanted to murder someone they could have done it some other time but they didn't. That's a terrible defence imho, and one that I think scum would use when they have no way of defending the initial action.

When I asked for the name of the other mason, I genuinely believed it would be pro-town to have that information out there. When dramonic pointed out the upside to having the mason stay hidden, I realized that it was a good reason to keep the other mason hidden.

Actually, it's a subset of "WIFOM", which you're apparently very good at.

Thank you for the backhanded compliment. If you don't want to treat it as a scumtell, I can't make you. (Would you like links to games where I've used it successfully?)

Oh, I don't think it's likely either. But the certainty with which you said it is what caught my eye.

So you're saying me being that certain is a bad thing, but you don't show why? Am I missing something?

Not sure I see how that's scummy. We've got to treat it as LYLO at this point, right? We probably have N3, but that still might lead to town loss without any recourse. So, I'm not sure how the setup spec changes anything.

Counterproductive is scummy because it distracts from actual scumhunting.
Demoralizing is scummy because it demotivates the town and makes them think it's going to be really hard to win, so why bother trying? (This particular version also makes us paranoid, because we think more players are trying to get us lynched because they know it'll help them win.)

If we lynch town today and go to N3, then regardless of whether we have an SK or vig, if they want to win, they have to, have to,

have to

hit mafia tonight. Which will lead to either a kingmaker endgame (which town can win if both other players are NK-vulnerable) or a standard 3-player LyLo.