Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[AlmasterGM]

Is ConfidAnon posting elsewhere on the site?

The reason I'm asking is because Zach's play is uncharacteristically bad, whereas I don't know anything about ConfidAnon.

[drmyshottyizsik]

ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

Please explain to me why Zach is scum and ConfidAnon is not. I think CA has flown way under the radar here for essentially playing the same game that Zach has.
VOTE: ConfidAnon
Want to come out and play?

Hey buddy I'm going to tell you something that will help you out SO much!!!

These is more than one scum

[Kid Know Nothing]

shotty, I'm waiting for answers from you. at work on my phone, will post more later

[drmyshottyizsik]

shotty, I'm waiting for answers from you. at work on my phone, will post more later

Answer about what? I reread and there are no questions that I have not answered.
But what would you like to know?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

Please explain to me why Zach is scum and ConfidAnon is not. I think CA has flown way under the radar here for essentially playing the same game that Zach has.
VOTE: ConfidAnon
Want to come out and play?

I agree with this, re: CA flying under the radar. I'm also with shotty when he says that we have more than 1 scum. If I had to go off of basic theory, Zach's play looks scummy. I'm not a big fan of meta, seeing as how I got burned by using it in another game, but I don't recall Zach playing like this. What troubles me is posts like 462 have got fairly good points in it and make me wonder if the Zach wagon isn't a goose chase. Either way, I think that suddenly veering off course to go after someone who's playing the same way is anti-town.

@G&H: with regards to my last post, there's a problem I thought of with your reasoning. The scum may be honest in saying that he finds player X scummy, but at it's core that is a complete falsehood, because the scum KNOWS that player X is NOT scummy, because he's not on the scum's team.

Besides, this isn't what I was talking about. In fact, this is a very MINOR point I brought up. My post dealt with the need for Town to give analysis so that they can "prove" that they're town. I think you've basically ignored my entire point and focused on the one thing you could wishy-washy explain away. I'm going to go back and re-read that big post of yours, and if I don't see analysis I'm voting for you.

[ConfidAnon]

Is ConfidAnon posting elsewhere on the site?

The reason I'm asking is because Zach's play is uncharacteristically bad, whereas I don't know anything about ConfidAnon.

Yes, I am.

Trying to lurk my way through here.

.................................................................

Just kidding.

Catching up in all my games this morning, it's time for this one now.

Post forthcoming, going to reread game.

[Good and Honest]

Thank you for your explanations, drmyshottyizsik! While I don't usually agree with your logic (as you probably know), it's always better when you share your opinions and I think a couple of the points you made about Zachrulez are interesting.

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour continues to be peculiar, just like on Day 1. On Day 1 there were some actions of ConfidAnon's towards gonnano but not much else. Now on Day 2 ConfidAnon made immediate accusations against Zachrulez (after I had hinted at their lack of interactions) and there hasn't been much else since... It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day...

Vel-Rahn Koon, here is my question again:

"Also, you state this about ConfidAnon: "I think CA seemed to drift through the game as well yesterday". What would you say about Zachrulez in that regard? Do you think Zachrulez "drifted through the game" on Day 1?"

You also haven't commented on gonnano's accusations against you. Do you have anything you'd like to say about them?

gonnano, it looks like we're interpreting "right questions" in different ways. I was thinking that if there was a question I wouldn't answer, it would be rephrased (i.e., become "right" in a way)... I'm really not sure why you have decided not to answer my questions. On the one hand, I'm saying that I'm always open to questions, I just can't promise I'll answer all of them. On the other hand, you seem to be declaring that you won't answer ANY of my questions (unless someone else also asks them). Our positions don't seem to be equal to me.

About "Do you have a protection role?" - an answer to this question would reveal some information about my role. I have now explained numerous times that I don't want to reveal information about my role.

About "Who would you vote for right now if you absolutely had to vote?" - you asked me this on Day 1 and I told you that I really don't want to think about that. I think the most correct answer would be: If I absolutely had to vote right now, I wouldn't have registered to this forum. I have registered here precisely because I don't absolutely have to vote right now.

You say that no one has refuted your points about Vel-Rahn Koon - yet I have asked you a question about one of those points and you're neglecting it.

By the way, according to you, you voted Vel-Rahn Koon "because he's been avoiding taking definitive positions like the plague". Now that I think about it, I find this reason quite surprising since on Day 1, just like me and Elleran, you stated that there was nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities.

redtail896, I'm not angry at all that you're disagreeing with my playstyle - after all, I'm expecting that there will be people disagreeing with my playstyle in each game I participate in. You're right that the choice for the other players is to accept my playstyle or vote to lynch me because of it. I can only hope that the group of players in a particular game of Mafia will happen to be tolerant towards me. For example, in my second game on this site the other players accepted me and my playstyle - only one player voted me because of disliking my playstyle (and, as it turned out, that player was a mafioso)...

I agree with you that on Day 1 gonnano seemed to concentrate quite a lot on AGar. However, as I have said, I think at least a part of that can be explained by my suggestion that gonnano was still under the influence of their recent game together - Mini 992. Otherwise, gonnano's behaviour during Day 2 has started to baffle me lately.

By the way, redtail896, I'd like to ask you something about a sentence of yours - "I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster)". Just to clarify - what were you wrong about regarding AlmasterGM?

AlmasterGM, it's not my intention at all to be rude. I'm sad if you perceive it that way. About my unwillingness to vote being "detrimental to the town" - in my other game with drmyshottyizsik, I have argued that this is actually detrimental to the MAFIA - because it makes it more difficult for the mafia to lynch innocent townspeople.

I'm not playing this way simply because it's "more fun" - if I play like most people play, I won't have ANY fun. Will you have NO fun at all if you answer my questions? After all, Mafia is a social game - i.e., there should be interactions between the players. If someone refuses to interact with someone else, that makes the game less interesting, I think.

I understand your point that I deserve to be lynched because of my playstyle - you have every right to dislike my playstyle.

I must admit I don't understand the link between Kid Know Nothing "attacking" you for attacking me and my unwillingness to lie.

I have to say, AlmasterGM, that I completely disagree with your idea - "We're lynching Zachrulez and nothing else matters". It certainly does matter to have an ongoing discussion about what is happening in our game.

By the way, I find it interesting that you say: "Zach's play is uncharacteristically bad". Would you explain what about Zachrulez's way of playing in this game is different than usual?

Hoopla, you state the game is "stalling". I think that (whether you like it or not) one of the reasons has been that people - including you - have been neglecting my questions/comments...

Vel-Rahn Koon again - I just can't agree with you (by the way, to me it doesn't matter whether the point seemed minor to you because it's interesting for me to discuss it). Let's look at the opposite example - let's assume that, from reading the thread, a mafioso doesn't feel at all suspicious of their partner(s). So, according to you, in spite of that, the honest thing for the mafioso would be to say that they are suspicious of their partner(s) - since they technically know their partner(s) are mafiosi. To me this is absurd.

And, in my opinion, I didn't ignore the point of your post. I gave my thoughts on how I feel about that matter.

[ConfidAnon]

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour continues to be peculiar, just like on Day 1. On Day 1 there were some actions of ConfidAnon's towards gonnano but not much else. Now on Day 2 ConfidAnon made immediate accusations against Zachrulez (after I had hinted at their lack of interactions) and there hasn't been much else since... It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day...

The thing I'm bad about with mafia on this site is inconsistancy. There are days when I'm on top of things and I post in all my games, giving (what I'd like to think is) decent analysis. And then there are other days when I don't feel like posting at all.

Nothing is jumping out at me except that zach is still scummy. I feel like I should have more content to post, but don't really have much to say.

[redtail896]

Thank you for your explanations, drmyshottyizsik! While I don't usually agree with your logic (as you probably know), it's always better when you share your opinions and I think a couple of the points you made about Zachrulez are interesting.

I agree, it's always better to share your opinions. Please practice what you preach. Example: Do you think I'm scum? Do you think Hoopla is scum? Do you think ConfidAnon is scum?

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour continues to be peculiar, just like on Day 1. On Day 1 there were some actions of ConfidAnon's towards gonnano but not much else. Now on Day 2 ConfidAnon made immediate accusations against Zachrulez (after I had hinted at their lack of interactions) and there hasn't been much else since... It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day...

This is great information that everybody can see. But there's no analysis. I'm interested in what conclusions you've reached via this information. What is your

opinion

on these actions? That's what's most important.

About "Do you have a protection role?" - an answer to this question would reveal some information about my role. I have now explained numerous times that I don't want to reveal information about my role.

I don't think you quite understand how limited and important this roleclaim is. All we are asking is whether or not you are a protection role. This does not destroy your metagame. You don't need to lie. I addition, if you are a doctor,

we need to know

. That means that it's very likely that shotty is lying, and I'm building a lot of logic and reads off of the assumption that shotty is town. Others are as well.

So here's the deal. By keeping your silence, you have effectively claimed that you are not a protective role. I will assume that you are not a protective role until you inform me otherwise. If, at the end of the game, you turn out to be a protective role and shotty is mafia, I blame any potential losses in this game entirely on you.

By the way, according to you, you voted Vel-Rahn Koon "because he's been avoiding taking definitive positions like the plague". Now that I think about it, I find this reason quite surprising since on Day 1, just like me and Elleran, you stated that there was nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities.

He was referring specifically to keeping an open mind about Hoopla's roleclaim.

redtail896, I'm not angry at all that you're disagreeing with my playstyle - after all, I'm expecting that there will be people disagreeing with my playstyle in each game I participate in. You're right that the choice for the other players is to accept my playstyle or vote to lynch me because of it. I can only hope that the group of players in a particular game of Mafia will happen to be tolerant towards me. For example, in my second game on this site the other players accepted me and my playstyle - only one player voted me because of disliking my playstyle (and, as it turned out, that player was a mafioso)...

My worry that I was trying to express is that by the time the other players know what your playstyle is, it's too late for them to do anything except vote you off, which is a poor choice. To continue the soccer analogy, it's like if the other players only discovered that you play one-footed after the whistle is blown. They certainly have a right to be angry, but at that point they have no choice except choose to play with a man down (an unsavory proposition). In addition, I'm not sure that I like that subtle dig at the end there.

By the way, redtail896, I'd like to ask you something about a sentence of yours - "I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster)". Just to clarify - what were you wrong about regarding AlmasterGM?

I was referring to the arguments between myself and Almaster regarding vig play.

[redtail896]

Nothing is jumping out at me except that zach is still scummy. I feel like I should have more content to post, but don't really have much to say.

All of this going on, and you don't have anything to say?

[ConfidAnon]

All of this going on, and you don't have anything to say?

*looks confused*

*reads latest post*

*wonders if you read it*

[redtail896]

All of this going on, and you don't have anything to say?

*looks confused*

*reads latest post*

*wonders if you read it*

I did read it. I'm just surprised that you have nothing else to say.

[gonnano]

Our positions don't seem to be equal to me.

About "Do you have a protection role?" [...] I don't want to

About "Who would you vote for right now if you absolutely had to vote?" [...] I really don't want to

You're not answering my (two) questions because you don't feel like it, I'm not answering your (two? three?) questions because I don't feel like it. Seems fair to me. To help things get moving, though, I will answer one of your questions even though I don't feel like it.

"When I asked you about the quick succession of votes for Elleran on page 10, you said: "Hoopla had been trying to get that wagon going for a long time already. After I joined in started to take off. My thoughts are that the scum were trying to see if they could get by with ignoring Elleran's scummy behavior, then when it looked like they might not get away with it they started showing more support for his bandwagon". Did you write that from the standpoint that Elleran was a mafioso?"

I wrote that to say that the voting behavior that I had observed was compatible with a scum-Elleran, and therefore made him seem scummy to me. Now it's your turn to answer a question that you don't feel like answering.

@ConfidAnon:

Do you think that your limited involvement in the game is hurting the town?
Does Zach seem scummy to you for any reasons other than ones that could also be applied to you?
What do you think about G&H's posts?
What do you think about Hoopla's scumteam picks?
Are you still not sure why Hoopla thought Almaster was probably town?

[Hoopla]

WHERE'S ZACH?

[redtail896]

Oh hey, look at that. The gender thing came back. Has that been there a while? Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Does somebody have a votecount? I think Zach's at L-2, but I want to make sure.

[ConfidAnon]

1. Do you think that your limited involvement in the game is hurting the town?
2. Does Zach seem scummy to you for any reasons other than ones that could also be applied to you?
3. What do you think about G&H's posts?
4. What do you think about Hoopla's scumteam picks?
5. Are you still not sure why Hoopla thought Almaster was probably town?

1. Yes. I aim to change that.
2. I agree with the case by Kid Know Nothing. If I remember right, there are points there that don't apply to me.
3. So freaking long. They're hard to read, and don't contain much information. However, on a slightly unrelated note, talking about the playstyle leads nowhere. I think we all universally agree that it's annoying, but we should be doing more trying to read it and less trying to change it.
4. Hoopla's analysis is great. There's nothing I really disagree with.
5. I'm sure why she thinks Almaster is Town.

[AlmasterGM]

AlmasterGM, it's not my intention at all to be rude. I'm sad if you perceive it that way. About my unwillingness to vote being "detrimental to the town" - in my other game with drmyshottyizsik, I have argued that this is actually detrimental to the MAFIA - because it makes it more difficult for the mafia to lynch innocent townspeople.

Using that logic, none of us should ever vote and then we will never lynch an innocent townsperson.

Except that doesn't work, does it, because then we will never lynch scum either and we will eventually lose. This is why your playstyle is selfish. If only one person (you) does it, then everyone can get by, but if multiple people start playing like you, the game degrades into nothing.

PROVE ME WRONG. I DARE YOU. I WILL ARGUE ABOUT THIS FOREVER.

I'm not playing this way simply because it's "more fun" - if I play like most people play, I won't have ANY fun. Will you have NO fun at all if you answer my questions? After all, Mafia is a social game - i.e., there should be interactions between the players. If someone refuses to interact with someone else, that makes the game less interesting, I think.

Wrong. Your playstyle is anti-town. Everybody else in the game says so, and if you make a poll in MD, everybody there will say so too. You are playing this way because YOU want to, and so you are selfish.

And to answer your question, yes, actually. Answering your questions is not at all fun and if I didn't feel an obligation to this game I signed up for I would never read anything written by you or talk to you again ever in my life.

I have to say, AlmasterGM, that I completely disagree with your idea - "We're lynching Zachrulez and nothing else matters". It certainly does matter to have an ongoing discussion about what is happening in our game.

Other things matter, but not when the other things become the main topic for debate and the primary lynch candidate slips into the shadows and evaporates. Which is WHAT IS HAPPENING.

By the way, I find it interesting that you say: "Zach's play is uncharacteristically bad". Would you explain what about Zachrulez's way of playing in this game is different than usual?

He usually doesn't suck so much and act so scummy.

[Hoopla]

Hoopla, you state the game is "stalling". I think that (whether you like it or not) one of the reasons has been that people - including you - have been neglecting my questions/comments...

Hilarious coming from the person refusing to vote, claim or post suspicions.

*goes back to ignoring*

[Hoopla]

THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS

We've got less than 48 hours until deadline AGAIN. We haven't got a claim from Zach, nor do we have any significant competing wagons in the event we need to change. Everyone get off your ass and state who you'd be willing to lynch today so we can compromise, because whatever we're doing now isn't working.

I'll vote:

Zach
Kid KnowNothing

Seriously, if this day ends in no-lynch, put me out of my misery and kill me tonight. I'm fed up with trying to run this game.

[AlmasterGM]

As I've said repeatedly, I'll lynch Zach or Good and Honest.

Kid Know Nothing wouldn't be bad, but he's a distant third.

[drmyshottyizsik]

As I've said repeatedly, I'll lynch Zach or Good and Honest.

Kid Know Nothing wouldn't be bad, but he's a distant third.

Ok zach is a great lynch KKN is ok, but it is too hard to read G & H

[Hoopla]

Redtail, would you vote Zach or Kid Know Nothing? Your vote is being wasted on ConfidAnon. Gonanno is also wasting his vote at the moment. Put it on Zach or Kid Know Nothing please.

KKN: it isn't too late to get

some

town points for bussing Zach.

[redtail896]

*sigh* UNVOTE: ConfidAnon

The point of that was never to lynch. I wanted to see CA's (and to a lesser extent, everyone else's) reactions. I have to say, I was rather underwhelmed.

I'd be willing to lynch Zach, less KKN. Actually, my number 2 right now is probably VRK, but I don't see that happening.

I am unwilling to lynch G&H until somebody presents a case that doesn't reduce to a policy lynch. Actually, I might present that case; I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above), but I don't think it's the best thing to do with this little time left.

[AlmasterGM]

I am unwilling to lynch G&H until somebody presents a case that doesn't reduce to a policy lynch. Actually, I might present that case; I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above), but I don't think it's the best thing to do with this little time left.

But that's the problem. You CAN'T case him, because 1) he never votes, so there's no wagon analysis and 2) anytime he does something that would normally be considered scummy, he writes it off as part of his self-declared Good and Honest meta.

[redtail896]

I am unwilling to lynch G&H until somebody presents a case that doesn't reduce to a policy lynch. Actually, I might present that case; I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above), but I don't think it's the best thing to do with this little time left.

But that's the problem. You CAN'T case him, because 1) he never votes, so there's no wagon analysis and 2) anytime he does something that would normally be considered scummy, he writes it off as part of his self-declared Good and Honest meta.

Not true. Well, kinda true. I agree that bandwagon analysis is impossible, but I can still catch him in misrepresentation, contradictions, and bad logic.