Mini 365- Thinking Mafia - Game Over!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Bandwagon vote: Random Acts

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Unvote, vote: Pink Princess

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Unvote, vote: Mert

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Read your role PM again. Then you'll understand.

Unvote, vote: omg_im_innocent_wtf

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Only if your role is mafia.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

We need a bandwagon.

Unvote, vote: Colonel Kurtz

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Lurkerhunting is very much pro-town. They are just as likely, if not more likely, to be anti-town, a pro-town lurker is generally speaking useless and an anti-town lurker is hard to read as scum.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Psst, Arafax, hypocrisy is not a scumtell.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

No, Twomz, it is not. Generally speaking, you know yourself to be town(or at least you pretend to). As such, your own behaviour is fairly irrelevant.

Example: A places a third vote on one bandwagon. B places one on the next.
A cites the "third vote on a wagon"- scum tell, because he believes B is more likely to be scum because of it. Of course townies can place third votes. But A believes scum are more likely to do it. There's nothing wrong with A's vote.

Now, applying a double standard

is

scummy, but that's not what hypocrisy is, not by a long shot.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

If someone starts the day saying they don't think so and so is scummy, then later in the day for no reason at all they start pushing for their lynch, it's typically concidered a scum tell (that's my closest example to hypocricy in mafia games).

That is a scum tell, yes, but it's not hypocrisy. More like flipflopping or inconsistent behaviour.

PP gave a good example. It's the kettle calling the pot black.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Because the kettle knows that he has a good heart, even though his colour suggests otherwise.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

To expand on what I just said, hypocrisy is generally speaking irrelevant. It has no bearing on the validity of the argument. Accusing someone of hypocrisy when it is irrelevent is in fact a form of Ad Hominem, the Tu Quoque(you too) form.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Sweet, a wagon.

Unvote, vote: Mert

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I support a Mert-lynch.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

The VC makes me happy. Mert is totally going to die.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Unvote, vote: Arafax

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

This is how I play. It doesn't mean that I'm scum or that I'm town, I'm sure other people could vouch for that. If you want to lynch me for being unreadable, that's a bad idea. We have real suspects.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Unvote, vote: Twomz

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

YARR RLY!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

*waits for Mert*

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Vote: Lowell

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

It's time for a ====[].

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Twomz, please kill RA tonight.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Dammit, just hammah the fool.

=====[]

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

That sounds like a good plan.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

It's getting close enough to lynch-or-lose that I feel mass claim is justified.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I agree with your earlier suggestion: letting Mert decide.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You'd be rewarding bloojay for lurking.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Counterclaim:

I'm the vigilante.

Vote: Colonel Kurtz

, he's scum.

Also, I didn't target anyone other than Twomz last Night.

And now it's time for your night choices, PP. I'm interested to hear them.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I'd rather just lynch Kurtz and vig you, PP. (And lynch Elias the next day if that doesn't do the trick). I have trouble believing Twomz was unroleblockable in addition to his lynch immunity(or whatever it was), as that's a very powerful ability already. If there was a scum roleblocker, I don't think (s)he'd waste his/her ability on you, PP, when there's a claimed cop around. In addition, I have trouble reconciling your argument to lynch Twomz day 2 rather than lynching Lowell and letting the vigilante take care of Twomz with you being a roleblocker.

Colonel Kurtz, I'd like you to explain to us why you "vigged" Arafax.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Woah, that's a lot of posts. I'll do my best to respond to all of them though.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Actually, I only mentioned lynching Twomz in 3 posts (405, 418 and 423) In the other 11 posts on the subject, I said for us to lynch Lowell and not Twomz. First of all, I wasn't sure we even had a vig, (since Twomz was still alive) which I said several times, so I thought lynching was possibly the only way to get rid of Twomz. I didn't like having an SK on the loose killing at night and misdirecting the town in the day - which was true and still is.

Hmm, I can get that, although I still think the better play is to give the vigilante a chance.

I might be an RB, but that's not a guaranteed block (since there is such thing as scum roleblockers who also block people and unblockable SK's - as last night so nicely proves), so I thought lynching the claimed bad guy was an idea worth considering - especially if he wasn't going to get NKed.

It generally speaking is guaranteed. Being roleblocked yourself or an SK being unroleblockable is truly an exception. And you know what happened the first time we tried to lynch him. That should play a part in your thinking.

Plus, added to Rosso's whole Lowell might be a kami argument it was obvious that if we couldn't lynch Lowell, Twomz was the next best lynch, me being a roleblocker or not.

That's why we wanted Twomz to hammer, no? (Or did we only decide that later? Must re-read that part.)

Your argument also rests on Kurtz being my scum partner. I find that combination highly implausible.

I don't see how it does actually. My argument is simply that your actions are inconsistent with the actions of a roleblocker. Of course, Kurtz is scum, so I do think you're scum with Kurtz, but that's besides the point.

I don't know why Twomz's kill went through, all I can give you is my theories. And this is a fact: Twomz was blocked and his kill still went through. So speculate all you want on what the mod/scumblocker would or wouldn't do but that's how it is.

So you recognize the validity of my argument?

CES, may I ask why you didn't vig Twomz the first night and instead chose no one?

We had just confirmed his lynch immunity-type ability. Scum rarely have that type of ability. I saw no reason to kill him. And I wouldn't have killed him Night 2 if he hadn't confessed. Night 1 I had some suspicions, but not one strong enough to justify just killing them without giving them a chance to, at least, claim.

What do you think about Kurtz's bredcrumbing of the role? Since you're not going to admit to being scum (obviously), do you think he's more likely scum or more likely another SK?

I've seen scum decide what to claim early on plenty of times. Anyone can breadcrumb a role. And I'm assuming he's mafia.

Due to the possible existance of a GF in this game, I'm going to hold fire on this for the moment. I haven't decided to definitely not disclose or anything as I'm still mulling over the options. If there is a town consensus on me revealing this information then I will need all five of the other remaining players to have 'voted' one way or the other on whether I should. Even if only one person has not given an opinion then I won't be buying the "but the town wants you to" argument. So, in other words, I haven't decided whether to or not yet.

Revealing your result is the right thing. More info can only benefit the town.

I vigged Arafax because I thought he was scummy. The day before I did it,I was saying that I thought he was scummy. Then he died. I said Twomz was scummy yesterday, then he died. Is it really that hard to put the pieces together?

You thought Twomz was scummy? Twomz CONFESSED to being scum. You can't seriously to expect to make anything out of that, do you? This is a craplogic argument.

As to the rest of Kurtz's post, I don't care that you're agggressive, you're scum.

As to the whole Twomz and the death of Arafax issue, I don't have a clue what the argument is about. As I see it, Twomz and the mafia killed Arafax.

Posts 519 and 520 is just Kurtz playing the disgrunted asshole town player routine.

The Pink Princess - Kurtz debate that follows is essentially PP giving Kurtz a helpful hint and Kurtz making something out of it and attacking her for no good reason.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Were I scum, breadcrumbing a power role, especially one that the SK (which we all knew existed) would not want sticking around, and one that a good claim would require proof of, would be an incredibly stupid idea. As scum, you would look for a safe claim that wouldn't require proof. A protective role or a passive role is much safer than vig.

A vigilante is a good strong claim. In addition, if claimed late in the game, the town can rarely afford to make him prove his role and there is no need for him to have made prior choices(as a good vig certainly doesn't vig every night in a mini). It can also provide the town with a false sense of security.

Most importantly, I took a look at your breadcrumbs and I noticed this:

In my mind, we obviously have a vig who is smart enough to not come forward (although I have my suspicions as to who it is).

If the need has arisen, you could've easily used that quote in a "I thought X was the vig."-type defense and I think such a defense would've worked.

Allow me to distill your argument to a syllogism.

CK has breadcrumbed vigilante
I have seen scum decide on what to claim early
therefore, CK is scum

This is just plain BS. I did not provide an argument for you being scum, I merely answered Mert's questions. I never implied a logical connection between the 2 answers I gave.

I breadcrumbed vigilante
all of the vigilante kills have coincided with people I have said should be lynched
therefore, it makes sense that I would be vigilante

You thought the claimed SK should be vigged? Amazing. I bet only a few people did.
(And Arafax was also, generally speaking, under suspicion.)

I guess what I'm really saying here is that in pure mafia terms, when there is a vigilante claim in the late game, it is usually the real vig and the scum is the one counterclaiming.

That's nonsense. There was a mass claim order. I was last on the list and the mafia knew there was a vigilante. The fact that you claimed vig and I counterclaimed is completely irrelevant. I couldn't have claimed first.

In my mind, I think it was fairly clear that Twomz didn't have the town's interests in mind.

Really?

Just moments before the end of day 1, you place the fifth vote on Twomz with the stated intention of "confirming" him. Yes, omg got killed, but I don't see that as sufficient cause to go from confirmed to clearly anti-town. He still had lynch immunity.

You claim to have not killed him because you saw no reason to. This, to me, is a cop-out answer. Your entire response there says "I didn't kill him because I didn't kill him" to me.

No, it's essentially "I didn't kill him because I didn't think he was scum."

You have made no argument to that point. Your argument was "Your actions aren't that of a roleblocker because you're scum". If I recall, when there are power roles in a scum group, you can only use one per night. She couldn't possibly be scum with me because then
a. there would have been no roleblocks or
b. there would be no mafia kills.

And since she claims to have blocked on a night when there was a mafia kill, she couldn't be a mafia roleblocker. To me, there are no holes in her claim, but there are several holes in your claim. How about you focus on explaining yourself rather than questioning people who have a fairly solid claim, hmm?

Firstly, I did make an argument to that point. Check the CES-quote in post #509. That was my argument. And I'm not saying she's a mafia roleblocker(we don't have proof that anyone was roleblocked), but I don't see why she couldn't be. You make the kill, she roleblocks.

And there is most definitely a hole in her claim. Twomz still managed to kill Rosso, despite her claim of blocking him.

Why should his lynch deflection play *any* part in our thinking?

Because we were considering lynching him again.

There were three killing parties in action at the time, and only two got a kill through.

No, there were two killing parties in action. The mafia and the SK. I didn't do anything.

1. He was hit by two gunshots (vig and mafia) and the mod only felt the need to mention one (which is unlikely because he made the distinction that Arafax was nailed by two killing parties in the first place)

You're making a bad comparison. Shot and Stabbed does not specify how many shots were fired. You wouldn't seriously expect it to say Shot, Shot and Stabbed.

You can assume that I'm mafia all you want (even though that isn't the case), but PP is definitely town.

The premise is wrong, the logic is faulty and the conclusion is also wrong.

I think I've said enough for now. I have things to do.
But just one more thing:

You seem to be the only one who's making something out of it.

I wouldn't call shouting "ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem" not making something out of it. That's an accusation.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Anyway, I said that the way a mafia group with power roles usually works is that you only get to use one of them per night.... So basically you didn't read what I said.

I did read that, but I thought I must be missing something, because I've never seen that before. A mafia roleblocker can roleblock without forfeiting the mafia kill. (S)he can't perform the kill generally speaking, but that's the only limitation I've ever encountered.

Uh, yeah, actually, I would. With the mod being specific enough to say that he was attacked with a knife and was shot, I'd expect the morning scene to say he was shot by different people if he was. Call me crazy, but I don't think our mod is a slacker, and he'd want us to have that info.

Bullets are bullets. I don't think we can assume we'd be able to tell the difference.

I love how you ended the post with something completely and totally irrelavant to what we were talking about, though. It really hearkens back to William Jennings Bryant. And I WILL crucify you on this cross of gold, because you're a lying scumbag.

You were lying, I pointed out the lie. I ended with that part because you ended with that lie.

On an unrelated note to the vote, I dislike his sporatic playstyle.

All of a sudden?

CES, why have you paid me such careful scrutiny and completely ignored Elias?

Your claim sent alarm bells ringing in my head. I knew Colonel Kurtz is who I should be focussing on today, as lynching him should practically assure us the win, but I couldn't ignore it.

If we lynch wrong, we potentially lose the game (unless I block correctly tonight and prevent a mafia kill), Right? By the way, if I were scum with Kurtz I could lynch CES right now and win the game. So I should be cleared at this point as not scum with Kurtz.

Correct, you are cleared.

Although your plans do have merit, Pink Princess, I much prefer simply lynching Colonel Kurtz and then vigging elias. And you can block elias too for extra fun.

I'd like to hear what bloojay thinks.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

The last quote belongs to Pink Princess, not Colonel Kurtz, just to clarify.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

God, the amount of craplogic and scummy behaviour you guys are letting Colonel Kurtz getting away with. I'm going to have to make a summary of all the things that give him away. (I'll try to do it tomorrow, but it'll be Saturday at the latest.)

My personal preference is to simply lynch scum(or try to) rather than getting bogged down in setup-related quandaries. Considering Twomz' role, it just feels like an unnecessary risk and I've seen the town lose due to playing the setup rather than playing the game.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Go scum!