Mini 1030 - White Flag Mafia (Game Over)

[RedCoyote]

I agree with Jack.

I don't think Rob or the doc have the same role PM as I do. I was told very clearly to confirm by PM.

It may be even worse with the doc, as Jack had called Robb out in the post directly above his. It's pretty bad when you neglect to read a thread with a grand total of 5 posts.

[RedCoyote]

Shit, hold on.

You're going to scare these poor tikes into claiming the moment someone looks at them funny.

Upon further review, although Robbnva has handled himself poorly, Jack's initial case has a flawed premise. In Caught in the Crossfire, zoraster had the Mafia confirm in the thread. In http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... ance Mafia, zoraster had the Mafia confirm via PM. I'm not finding any games where the Mafia had to confirm in a QT, but I know search on this site is a bit weird when you start delving into the archives, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Jack, did you just pull that "confirm by QT" out of your ass? It was good to pick on them for not reading their role PM, but that's more of an anti-town thing than it is a scummy thing. I'm also looking back at a few of the Mod's previous games... I'm not finding anything. Although I think that's a clever angle, given that I'm thinking it's complete bs to catch some reactions, I am not satisfied that the doc's reactions are scum-sided. Very rarely would you see me stand up for someone post-claim, but we haven't even heard from everyone yet. There's no reason to quick lynch on the first day, in fact it's silly to do so. The scum may not have even made a post yet, let alone cast a vote. This L-1 push is all kinds of slimy.

##vote: Haschel Cedricson

[RedCoyote]

To which reactions are you referring?

His reaction's to Jack's initial argument, and, further, his changing of opinion on how Robb was being approached. If someone misreads a post, it takes courage to admit you were wrong. Yes, it can be a manipulative ploy, but I don't think that's the case here. I think the doc genuinely misunderstood Jack's observation originally, and then, upon clarification, changed his opinion. Hell, I'm just as guilty. What's worse, I played as scum in one of this Mod's previous games, and I still didn't catch on to the QT confirm thing.

Regardless, I still think the play (Jack's) was wonderful, if misinterpreted. Jack gets a thumbs up from me for his intentions, but it's easy to see how much our playstyles differ. The doc is not the appropriate way to go right now. He's erratic, sure (what newer player isn't?), but I am getting not getting this massive scum vibe from him, certainly not enough to forgo the entire day over. I want to see multiple wagons, on D1 especially, alternative lynches, arguments, and, eventually, a homicidal resolution.

Surely we can at least agree that it's not in the town's best interests to have players go this entire game day without talking, right?

---

quick lynching is pro town

Quick lynching is a wonderful tool. One I'm more than happy to employ, should the opportunity arise.

I wouldn't do that here though, and I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation (short of a night 0 or some sort of major slip) where I would willingly go for it on the first day.

---

Mod

, I don't think the computer caught my vote. Let me know if I did something wrong.

[RedCoyote]

I find 79 and 82 to be completely unbelievable. Read it in the context of drshotty-scum thinking he's been caught having inside knowledge of the mafia role pm and backtracking to save himself. He votes robbn for confirming in thread even though he did the same thing...it's not like he made a genuine mistake.

Sorry, Jack. I don't see it this way. Those are exactly the two posts I'm talking of. If anything I think better of him for admitting to his mistake rather than acting as though he's obliged to defend Robb. It's too abrupt of a change, in my mind, when I read him as scum. Why would the doc think he would get a slam dunk in voting Robb otherwise?

---

How do you reconcile that

Wait a minute, wait a minute. When did the doc focus on "it's too early to make cases"? The closest thing I can find to this is post 36, where he actually responds to a question directed at Robb. Even here, this is more critical of Jack for having no basis for his vote rather than complaining about the fact that Jack had a case.

---

RC wants alternative lynches? Great, he can be one.

Cute.

But I'm finding that the more I read over the doc, the less and less impressed I am with how he's getting strong armed. I've never been in a game with players advocating ending a day before all the confirmations were in. That's absolute insanity, and it tells me that there is some sort of underhanded motivations in that grouping (of whom I consider Friend, HC, and Data to be the primary culprits, although Jack is getting preferential treatment due to having experience with him, and Scott hasn't really had a chance to iron out his position).

---

so am I really in the minority here? lynching a nilla townie is not considered an acceptable loss on day 1?

No, what your saying is actually very logical. The way you say it, however, could probably use a little more nuance.

---

Thanks for the hard-hitting analysis, chief.

This is kind of a wise ass comment, but it's actually very funny and, more importantly, pretty perceptive. I'll take it even further and say that I'm scratching my chin as to why yabba even bothered to say that other than to make it look like he was doing more than he is.

[RedCoyote]

I don't understand the tangible difference between the two (trying to expose Jack's case as awful v.s. defending Robb against Jack's case). You'd have to ask the doc what he actually thought Jack meant (you're jumping to conclusions when you claim to know what it was), but I'll tell you that I was less impressed with the doc before he flip-flopped than after (if it isn't already apparent).

[RedCoyote]

Actually that's fair. I had forgotten that you had asked that. So your conclusion is that because the doc wasn't aggressive enough against Jack, even though it was obvious that he didn't agree with him, he's scum (among other things, but this being the crux of your vote)?

[RedCoyote]

Although I suspect I'll still be pigeonholed as reactionary after the post, I'm going to change my vote anyways.

##Unvote

##Vote: Friend

I'll attempt to explain why this is the best lynch off the "let's lynch the doc before anyone notices" gang, and the thoughts that are going through my head when I'm reading some of Friend's posts.

In this game, I think a quicklynch would have been good.

Although none of the three I pointed out specifically have been willing to concede that their wagon was unacceptable, I think Friend was the only one to be this blunt about it. That he didn't really care whether or not every player has confirmed. Jack just throws out some winks and nods, HC dodges it completely, and I hadn't really asked Data or Scott specifically, but I feel as though they were/are the more reasonable doc wagoners.

It wasn't the hammer. DMSIS is not smart enough to pretend to be hammered and say "welp I'm town" as scum.

This is dismissive, but if Friend actually were to believe this, then how is it that he can still call the doc scum?

Eh maybe you're right.

##vote: DMSIS

Instead of going with his "DMSIS is not smart enough to do this as scum", he limps back onto the wagon after testing the waters with his Robb vote.

HC and Jack have actually been engaging me and trying to explain why it is I'm wrong on this one, in contrast to Friend, who just assumes that I'm not town-sided. Data and Scott haven't been stalwarts, so I'm thinking they shouldn't be so carelessly thrown into the mix with Jack, HC, and Friend. If they're scum, they need to be found using a different approach. Although Friend moved his vote a couple of times, they were basically just throwaway positions. He still fell back on the doc, so it's effectively like he never really left the wagon.

[RedCoyote]

I'm not "pulling" anything, and although I'm only so-so on Robb, his pattern of voting yesterday was downright miserable.

I'd much rather we tried for a better lynch, but I won't throw down for Robb like I was doing for the doc.

Seriously, 2 more votes and lets make the mafia no-kill.

This is pretty sneaky; I'm game.

##vote: Robbnva

[RedCoyote]

It took red like 20 minutes to write that post by the way. Ignore his excuses. We can deal with him tomorrow.

I had to send my nightkill PM to zora.

---

Who's a better lynch?

Friend by a mile.

---

So what's the course of action with the nightkill? If, by some huge stroke of luck, there actually isn't a nightkill, who are we crossing off? Data for sure, then me, Jack, HC, and Wisteria? If there is a nightkill, I'm thinking tomorrow's lynch probably should come from this group as well.

[RedCoyote]

There was scum trying to quicklynch the doc, no doubt in my mind.

How many and which people are the questions.

[RedCoyote]

Let me read this over, since, apparently, when you spend 12 hours away from Mafiascum you are not only lynched before you get a chance to claim, your entire team loses.

[RedCoyote]

Look, maybe I should've claimed early, maybe not. I figured if I did that we'd, one, just have a big target on our backs for nightkills, and two, just have a lot of people saying, "Hmm... not sure if I believe... we should test it out by lynching one of them". So, I figured, if one of us was probably going to be lynched/shot anyways, that I would just defend the doc as best as I could until one of us died. If I died, hopefully people would take a hint, and if he died, I would claim when necessary.

If I didn't have my power, btw, I would've lynched the doc in a heartbeat. So I had no issue with that lynch really. I really, really, really would've liked to have claimed before y'all let the scum lynch me. I get what Jack/HC/Data were trying to do though, you know, so I'm not going to whine or point fingers. I necessarily had to play a little scummy to protect the doc, which I don't think I would've ever done had I not known he was town. I was thinking though that this was okay because I could just claim if things got too hot. Jack/HC/Data were playing with the idea that you can't wait for claims because that increases the chance of a nightkill. There was nothing wrong with this strategy (I even participated in it when I thought it best served the town (e.g. when the lynch wasn't on me/the doc)), except it kind of turns the game into one big coin flip.

Well, for what it's worth, I really enjoyed playing with you guys for the short time that it lasted. The Mod is great, although this is the second time I've played with instant night actions and I'm still not digging it. I liked it even worse with the mini game size due to the way this game was played, even though I hypocritically tried to use it to my advantage. I didn't expect that it was going to keep being used in that way, although I probably should've realized it. From what I can tell the game was balanced, but I'd have to see it ran in a more traditional sense. I'd really like to see this mechanic ran in a more traditional way altogether. Instant nights are just a completely different game style, as I think is proven by how this game was played. Hell, instant nights probably changed the game more than the "white flag" aspect did. I do think instant nights have merit, but they are just not my cup of tea at all. To be perfectly honest, this type of play reminds me more of EpicMafia than anything else. Unless you were specifically looking to make a game in that style, I would definitely reserve instant nights for large/marathon games exclusively, and even large games I would be weary of it.

But that's not to take anything away from zora, of course; He's a pro Mod through and through.