Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[Mehdi2277]

VOTE: Robert It's a username and he's already shown he isn't lurking. Trying to discredit the vote based on his username doesn't really work.

[Mehdi2277]

It's more of jokes by themselves I dislike. Do you have any weak opinions on people not related to username type stuff? Continuing lurker want to explain the not thinking thing as a scum tell?

[Mehdi2277]

I'm curious how we lynch someone today since it's going to be day one for a while. So any opinions on the people you've played with before and their current play?

[Mehdi2277]

It's the ideal time to reaction fish (even if it's still dumb to claim reaction fishing but not scummy). Curious why you're not voting robert since both of your options makes him sound bad.

[Mehdi2277]

Since reaction fishing generally get's opinions a bit quicker and moves the game which is ideal early on.

[Mehdi2277]

If I am I'd probably be asked numberQ to vote you.

And as for the no idea are you referring to Jake and NS or just people in general.

Lastly how is it bad to call it reaction fishing since you seem to dislike calling it that?

[Mehdi2277]

Well for weak reads it works well including rvs. Currently don't think you're mafia just for this calm discussion looking at it in some depth.

UNVOTE: Robert VOTE: Xis, why Lord who's yet to appear vs someone who can respond now?

[Mehdi2277]

No. I think that should be even more clear considering I unvoted you.

[Mehdi2277]

Yeah spice it's more fun to think things seriously and not have the game continue like that for a page.

And Xis the game started onlt about 5 hours ago so how his making him post now needed (same for robert).

[Mehdi2277]

That's false. I treated the game seriously before it even started since I was in a hydra and trying to discuss how we'd play the game. You're not getting me swapped with OS are you? My first post was me saying how we'd play as a hydra.

[Mehdi2277]

Second post was me question parama here:

Then is there a reason to say you don't have a PR? Or even is there a reason to think a PR exists?

~Mehdi

Do you want to keep on going? I played that game seriously from the start. So I want you to explain how that is true in anyway.

[Mehdi2277]

I think that shows the point of I always play seriously. If you really need something closer to that here:

I actually planned to treat the set up seriously and basically said so in sign ups. I don't think I've ever not played somewhat seriously.

Mafia Qt is Sixty's everyone can daykill someone game.

P-edit: Not really true since Sc and Spice's vote I'd at least count as serious.

[Mehdi2277]

in not is. And the quote is also pre-game.

[Mehdi2277]

No. How does it sound like a joke?

[Mehdi2277]

I'm anti joke during the game if the post doesn't have something relevant (although if I already have a read on someone I don't mind as much). It wasn't done to reaction fish.

P-edit: Intentionally stretching on something early on works though. Weak reasoning > No reasoning.

[Mehdi2277]

Moving on SC how'd you expect me to respond? You fosed me based on meta and unvoted me saying we don't need to argue meta?

[Mehdi2277]

I haven't played with the majority of players here, but if a scum tell is part of their meta then they can defend it here too.

[Mehdi2277]

Can you explain what being assessed for something in this game does? Did you just get pmed saying you were assessed and nothing else occurred?

[Mehdi2277]

@Jal, I actually thought Jake had something since I remembered his name, but I wasn't asking for a detailed just a simple he sounds normal, a bit more relaxed, etc. Just a small lean thing to continue.

Next, dislike the Lurker wagon. Curious when the last time someone only read a few posts in this short of a game has happened since he stopped reading after 4 posts doesn't seem likely. Nor is it really new for someone to treat early discussion as weak. So mog/jal want to explain it more then that?

P-edit: I'll be clearer then SC. I was criticizing the joke vote.

[Mehdi2277]

Holy crap somehow I missed posts 43-46.

I'm down for this

unvote: vote lurker

@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?

I think that says why you're on the wagon. If it's a different reason you can say it, but from the reasoning here that I'm assuming followed Jul's I dislike why you're voting him and disagree with it being scummy.

P-edit: And Jake was also the first person voted.

No, but I still think the reasoning you're pushing is dumb. Sure scum have done it, but you're not rejecting the general statement. Treating early comments as still random isn't new from town either and either explain how it happens more often from new scum relatively then new town or it isn't a scum tell.

[Mehdi2277]

Mog if you want to play vaguely sure, but otherwise I'll assume your vote is because of what you said near it. Jal posts right before you quoting a post from lurker. You say you didn't notice it and then vote him.

Jul It doesn't take 5 votes on a person to call reasoning bad.

Robert what would you like to do day 1? No lynching is worse then mislynching.

[Mehdi2277]

I won't argue this in theory since that thinks too long but how about numbers. If we no lynch we're making the game a night start (assuming no day powers). 13 player vanilla day start win chances with 3 scum (the most likely number) is 20 percent chance for town. Same thing but with night start is 10 percent. Here's the calculator that does this.

[Mehdi2277]

You realize that logic can just be reflected. If you argue it the same way it doesn't become better when I said it was bad before.

As for the no lynching thing while it's a wrong idea I've argued the same idea a ton off site where people generally play cautiously/don't see how a mislynch isn't worse.

Lastly have you ever played a game where you say someone is scum and everyone who disagrees with you is scum? I doubt it so want to clarify how me defending him is different from a townie thinking your accusations are wrong.

[Mehdi2277]

Xis so do you agree with SC that I'm normally serious or do you agree with his earlier I'm being too serious?

And if you want participation with the Lord vote why unvote him before he appears?

[Mehdi2277]

Did you change the day/night number? I tried it and got twice as much win wise for day start vs night.

[Mehdi2277]

So what happened to your read on me spice (do you want to be called that or something else?) Curious how Xis's sheeping is better then Jal though when he did to get off pressuring someone who hadn't responded yet.

[Mehdi2277]

You don't even have a valid argument. You are just making assumptions and arguing it like it actually means something. So you've seen someone do X before. So what? What does it mean? Is it a town tell? A null tell? What is it?

You're pushing something as a scum tell without explaining how it occurs more commonly from scum.

You never even answered my question: Is Lurker a town read?

I did.

No

, but I still think the reasoning you're pushing is dumb. Sure scum have done it, but you're not rejecting the general statement. Treating early comments as still random isn't new from town either and either explain how it happens more often from new scum relatively then new town or it isn't a scum tell.

Lastly, I just made a post to Lurker clearing up that negative reactions to a wagon doesn't necessarily mean scum. You obviously had to read that post just to respond to my point towards you. Don't pretend to be ignorant. I haven't even called you a scum read and already you're getting all up in your pants about the possibility that I may think so.

Not necessarily. Scummy scum also love to just defend the shit out of random people thinking they're pro town.

Want to contradict more? Since my post on that came right after you said scum love to defend people a lot (and I'm the main defender so who else would that refer to).

Still feelin' like Xis is scum for post 31?

Vote still on although now with him sheeping you when he was trying to pressure someone but good luck for him doing that when you just unvote him.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm concerned since A. they're not on someone I think is scummy and B. I completely disagree with the reasoning. On the blatant wagoning it's more of the fact he unvoted someone he was trying to pressure. The other thing is the fact Jal is leading the wagon so I just think of her as a bit better then who followed her on to it.

[Mehdi2277]

All to Jal in order of quotes:

As for the argument it's more of newer players thinking early discussion is relatively unimportant isn't new. What lurker did isn't very different from Robert's idea that no lynching is better day 1. Both show the idea that current discussion doesn't help much and while it's bad idea it is not a scummy idea.

You say some scum like to defend a lot. I'm the only defending him a lot. And I'm supposed to naturally understand it was meant in general vs at me?

I'm assuming all the questions for 104 are answered.

[Mehdi2277]

Actually for the before then question I had 0 reason to unvote him. He hadn't done anything to make me trust him more since when I gave the question nor did anyone else do something to make me think they're scummier.

[Mehdi2277]

Ok... So there was a joke with my username...

Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.

Here's what he said. Last sentence where he calls the game still in rvs I'd consider him thinking the discussion is still weak.

[Mehdi2277]

Mhork I never claimed reaction fishing. Skim too much?

[Mehdi2277]

Jal still confident in your lurker wagon considering how badly Mhork went on it?

[Mehdi2277]

So what other votes do you like? Currently Mhork and Xis both make good votes.

[Mehdi2277]

Mhork I didn't. That was robert and that kind of proves you're skimming to forget who said what.

Early wagons that are being treated seriously, are based on bad reasoning, and are up to L-2 are bad especially when two votes are blatant sheeping and one is rvs.

[Mehdi2277]

VOTE: Mhork

You're not even taking a minute or two to go back and check and are just arguing back without thinking much. Currently you're worse then Xis the guy who can't pressure at all.

[Mehdi2277]

I tell him he's wrong. He doesn't take a minute to iso me to check or just look back. He has a scum read on me for something that never happened and it's not worth checking somehow. That's how it's scummy since townies would think more about their scum reads then that.

[Mehdi2277]

And then add in his vote on Lurker is also blatant sheeping. The reason he gave is near identical to what Jal gave.

[Mehdi2277]

So what am I supposed to do? I think he's scum which is enough of a reason for me to push him hard.

Let's see a person is near a lynch, he's shown to skim the thread, and still votes him with 0 new reasoning. Yeah I think that's scummy.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm more against I still don't know why he's voting lurker. He says it's not sheeping you, but won't say why.

At the moment though Mhork > Xis >>> Mog when it comes to lynching.

[Mehdi2277]

I'd expect quick replies to all the other votes too if that were the case unless he decided to react differently for different votes which I doubt.

[Mehdi2277]

And your still voting lurker why? Or is mog a lesser scum read currently?

[Mehdi2277]

I think not speculate -> not play while an exaggeration isn't that bad of one for someone who thinks he's mafia.

[Mehdi2277]

How hard is it to copy the data and post it here?

[Mehdi2277]

Lurker other more important question on your reads on who voted me (or well better reads in general including Xis and Mhork)?

SC is there a reason to not say the other reason you unvoted me.

Mog you're bugging people about answering questions, but won't answer one yourself. You claimed to have voted Lurker for a reason you didn't say, but won't say it. What is it or is faking something too hard?

[Mehdi2277]

I think you're confusing one thing. He fosed me for reaction fishing. He then realized robert was the one who did it so the fos changed to robert. Beyond that happy with the vote.

[Mehdi2277]

There's a branch check box if you'd like to see how it does it. Just trust me the chances of winning are better for a lynch instead of a no lynch.

[Mehdi2277]

Here's the theory version of why no lynching is bad. No one besides you is pushing it for a reason.

[Mehdi2277]

Well is there a reason you're still voting jake when other people have discussed things that are worth commenting on (lurker and mhork are two people I'm curious what you think of).

[Mehdi2277]

How? She's been pushing people and scum hunting more then most of this town. She started the first true wagon.

And at the moment lynching scum > pressuring some lurker.

[Mehdi2277]

A. Jal, Mhork, and Mog all seem to think he's scum with their votes (Xis not so much).

B. Pressure votes work fine when you don't call them pressure votes. If he knows it's just pressure it's a lot easier to ignore. Voting a scum read whether it's mhork or jal beats pressuring jake when it's unlikely to make him post much more when he knows the vote isn't going to get him lynched.

[Mehdi2277]

How do you feel on the current wagons themselves on the two of them?

[Mehdi2277]

It's more of what do you think of the people on those wagons. Lurker and Lord are on each other so that cancels. Then it's me and SC pushing mhork vs Jal, Xis the sheep, and AI the rvs vote.

[Mehdi2277]

I think there's no reason to not answer. If you want to soft claim a role this early then just say it's role related.

And again I'm not sure who all three scum are, but if have someone as a strong scum read I'll tunnel them until my mind changes or they're dead.

P-edit: Arrogance is fun.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm male. Anime =/= female. As for post count amount I always post a lot.

[Mehdi2277]

Spice still think Jal > Mhork vote wise? Jal's continued to be proactive more and opinion wise is actually forming multiple reads as the wagon on lurker formed..

[Mehdi2277]

And this gut is pure gut or can it be explained to some degree at least?

[Mehdi2277]

Is it scummy to say I'll be busy for the next few days? Since that's what I'd compare it to and I think you're exaggerating the post being scummy.

[Mehdi2277]

I'll help more later when discussion is serious and I'm busy right now both are things that deal with promising content but one is scummy and the other isn't?

P-edit: Point being both deal with appearances in trying to say I'll help which in a vacuum might be bad, but in practice is more of a way for people to have their presence known.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm not referring to V/LA. I'm referring more to posts like Xis's last post.

[Mehdi2277]

I think both are worth noting so just agree to disagree on it. I'm treating both like promises to help out more which isn't in practice scummy.

[Mehdi2277]

Read wise? It helps since you actually are showing a good amount of thought in reads and makes me think you're more likely town. Agreement wise I still think they both show similar mindsets of someone trying to explain they'll help later when it really doesn't help besides show they aren't lurking.

[Mehdi2277]

Yes although primarily because I think Mhork is scum and I don't think he's bussing (Xis I also think a good chance of being scum, but less so).

[Mehdi2277]

Well you think lurker is scum. I think mhork is. As for not bussing you generally don't assume every time someone you suspect is voting someone it's mafia. You usually think it's voting a mislynch.

[Mehdi2277]

So you spend most of the time calling me bad and then just back track at the end to I'm town? Continuing I didn't call jal mafia. I was referring to robert's scum reads because I'd rather him vote someone I think is town then vote no one. I also see a complete lack of reasoning for town Mog.

[Mehdi2277]

I can promise you the set up is much more complex then you think and the roles are more unique then you'd expect.

[Mehdi2277]

Oh and as for the your voting someone, it's mainly I'd rather vote on an actual scum read instead of vote to pressure when by saying it's for pressure most of the pressure disappears.

[Mehdi2277]

Lurker has 5 votes. The only vote change since the last vote count is Mog is back to voting Lurker (so Mhork is still at 3 votes).

[Mehdi2277]

UNVOTE: Mhork VOTE: Xis I'm not going in detail unless someone wants me to but I like his last two posts as he's been pushed more. My opinion Xis hasn't changed so it's mainly unvote someone he wanted to pressure to vote lurker when it didn't seem like he found him scummy (and if it was to pressure why unvote the guy you're trying to pressure to vote someone else for pressure reasons).

Mog probably still thinks lurker is a better lynch and having multiple scum reads that deserve votes isn't a scum tell.

[Mehdi2277]

He already did answer you (well he answered mhork who asked the same question).

[Mehdi2277]

If two people ask the same question do you answer both or just one?

[Mehdi2277]

How many cards do you have?

[Mehdi2277]

Since speed hammers are more of a myth then anything else. That and I still think his reaction which is actually respond timely is fine and looks town.

[Mehdi2277]

Town. Looking at past posts for my opinions on people works well if I've commented on them before.

[Mehdi2277]

Unless you're cards work differently mine didn't give me a power for each separate card just one power together.

[Mehdi2277]

Having more cards would likely change powers. I doubt we won't get new cards as the game goes on.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm guessing cards of people who die will end up back in the living hands. For now don't worry on it too much.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm curious who the hammer intent is since I see a lack of one and mog while it was strange it wasn't scum motivated. He said most of it and the one part he left vague isn't something he'd have been able to keep vague (so yes I recommend you claim the 1 shot ability). He's still responding quickly to when he's been at L-1 and doesn't look more apathetic or constantly focus on defending/avoiding things.

[Mehdi2277]

He's not dying since now he can guarantee one person's live to the next day (if that person dies he'll have a guilty to claim). Preferably who scum would want dead most, but the action is definitely being directed.

[Mehdi2277]

As for who the hammer intent is, what is it with you guys expecting me to see the future?

It's just convention on this site to almost never hammer without stating hammer intent to allow other people to comment. Might be ignored if someone has already claimed, but otherwise it's just generally stuck too (one big reason why quick hammers almost never happen).

He hinted the power earlier when he said his utility gave him some nice power and it's not like he wouldn't have been made to claim it so the scum motivation of hiding power would be to go fully vanilla not soft claim part making him end up full claiming later.

[Mehdi2277]

9/10 times it'll occur and the tenth either better have a good reason or will be fosed a lot later. That's how rigorous it is.

[Mehdi2277]

Exception being games that are like 5 players big, but for something past 9 it's rare.

[Mehdi2277]

It's a small enough risk where someone who actually takes it will be suspected anyway or have to explain it so it doesn't really hurt much. The chances that rare quick hammer hits some great pr is pretty low.

Do you still think Mhork should have more votes? Or is there someone else you suspect more besides lurker right now?

P-edit: Secret votes sounds fun. My past history is 24 hour phases and role madness with balance/swinginess might not be nice.

[Mehdi2277]

Since he was wondering why lurker didn't claim til L-1. I think the main point now is if you were voting lurker and unvoted him who do you suspect now?

[Mehdi2277]

Is the math the strange thing for her or is something else right now?

[Mehdi2277]

Every player is null except for the wagon? None of the wagons so far or people pressured you have a read on?

[Mehdi2277]

28/13 = 2 remainder 2

11 people have 2 cards while 2 people have 3 cards.

I'm curious how Mhork flipping scum condemns spice. I can somewhat see mhork becoming more suspicious if spice flips scum but not the other way around.

[Mehdi2277]

Did I miss something? How do you know 2 people have 3 cards?

2x + 3y = 28
x + y = 13

Solve and you get 11 for x (people with 2 cards) and 2 for y (people with 3 cards). I'm assuming everyone has at least two cards and no one has four or more cards.

[Mehdi2277]

SC why didn't you unvote lurker before? He claimed before your last two posts.

[Mehdi2277]

And Xis now that I finished reading that wall what did you think of lurker in post 96? I don't want a vague answer I just want your read on him. Was it null, scum, town and why back then?

[Mehdi2277]

And what card did you get?

I'd laugh if gnr is playing a real game of monopoly as we play mafia and as the game continues cards will be lost without death. If you can land on CC then you can land on my cards and end up paying them to me (the reverse also works). The more likely theory remains random people are picked for events like that.

P-edit: Not everyone has a place like electric works (or whatever the name is). One of the only things you can own that's not a street/avenue/etc (RR being the other that with 4 would be weaker).

[Mehdi2277]

So maybe the second vote on the board is just another for you to use. Assuming you can change it like the first using both votes together works best.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm not counting them and only counting initial cards we got. And Jake I don't see giving number of cards as a problem.

[Mehdi2277]

UNVOTE: Xis was mainly curious if you'd call it null when you're staying on the wagon and comment on not to read your vote post so narrowly made it sound like the scum read existed.

And as for the card I was asking about what card robert got from the CC.

[Mehdi2277]

As for the argument it's more of newer players thinking early discussion is relatively unimportant isn't new. What lurker did isn't very different from Robert's idea that no lynching is better day 1. Both show the idea that current discussion doesn't help much and while it's bad idea it is not a scummy idea.

You say some scum like to defend a lot. I'm the only defending him a lot. And I'm supposed to naturally understand it was meant in general vs at me?

I can easily see what Robert is doing being associated with a newer player. I've seen it all the time and it's almost an expected discussion topic for most Newbie games. I wouldn't quite pin what Lurker did as thinking earlier/(then current) discussion as weak and and not helping much. It was more so like he was blowing everything off and just signing into the thread.

I'll give you the defending bit as I can see how you can interpret that.

Being willing to actually back away on a point vs argue it a ton.

Wagons get results, Mehdi. That is how you git dem scums. Actually Mog's turn against you looks pretty scummy.

Six pages in and this medhi guy seriously is about to wet himself to lynch someone, its tripping me out.

Willingness to comment on most people read wise and to take advantage of the wagon. It wasn't just a push on lurker, but also being observant of who voted him herself.

Yeah, putting those first or second votes on people. He really wants a lynch. So, do you think Mehdi be da scums?

*How* Lurker claimed was pretty townie. It also looks like he looked at his pm and to read his role before posting. The only thing that caught my eye about it was that he has 2 cards. I have a different amount. Do we all not start off with the same amount of properties?]

If either Baby Spice or Mhork flip scum, the other would be more likely to flip scum.

A bit more detail on lurker's claim besides back away he claimed watcher. And the if they flip scum is also a weak town tell since it'd mean either bussing or looking at a line of logic that won't help you.

There's a couple other minor things, but I think jal is town. Heavily doubt the wagon on lurker is pure town. Mog already mentioned and mhork/xis already mentioned. Currently leaning towards SC or numberQ (even though numberQ is part lurker lynch).

SC what do you think of the wagon you're on?

[Mehdi2277]

VOTE: numberQ

[Mehdi2277]

What do you think of SC not backing off of lurker?

Mainly. That and I'm still not sure on how to treat the wagon on lurker.

[Mehdi2277]

VOTE: SC mostly based on the post above.

[Mehdi2277]

Since it sounds similar to the role pm I got and would just recommend you look at yours and compare it to how he claimed.

And I mean his power can be required to target one person by having a town consensus saying he needs to target player x and then that player won't die unless scum want to sacrifice one of their own.

[Mehdi2277]

@Mehdi2277, You vote gives me pause. As somebody I was considering very independent and scum hunting, you change your style to following, Why?

Since at the moment I'm voted half of the wagon on lurker and not really found the 3 I voted to react badly. If I swapped back it'd be Xis, but I'd rather vote someone else on the wagon and Mog + Jal I think are town. So I'm willing to follow reasoning I like.

[Mehdi2277]

Number continuing on the SC argument he backs down from his votes too easily. Vote me because of meta, k don't want to argue meta when I show he's wrong. Vote Mhork because of something not true and backs down again. While I understand unvoting when you misread something doing it repeatedly shows lack of care with votes.

And I think it's somewhat better he waited to claim watcher since that was likely just directly with the card so he didn't see that as part of the main claim. Tell me the scum motivation of not full claiming then if it's likely to be forced out of you?

[Mehdi2277]

@Mehdi

:

Since it sounds similar to the role pm I got and would just recommend you look at yours and compare it to how he claimed.

How does his claim sound similar tot he role pm you got?

In the sense of vanilla being separate with the cards being lower down. Mainly I don't think he'd claim vanilla + watcher as scum and would say watcher without considering that when fake claiming. Sure the claim might not be town itself, but the way he claimed was town.

Continuing watcher can be directed more for the purpose of protecting someone. Redirector isn't a common role and roleblocker can belong to someone town with the way this game was set up pretty easily. So make him watch someone so that scum won't target that player (or don't direct him and hope he correctly guesses who scum would kill when they have to consider the watcher which isn't likely for him to guess right).

Or the fact that he thinks everyone would guess pr from electricity company when I really don't see how it's obvious it has a nice role like watcher attached to it which just feels genuine.

Spice since you said Jal's reason for voting lurker was bad what about the people who sheeped her logic? Why weren't they as bad as her (or worse) for sheeping really bad reasoning?

[Mehdi2277]

Sc a good portion of my post also explains why I disagree with you that the way the claim was done isn't town. Response?

[Mehdi2277]

K, how is sheeping/wagoning just slightly scummy when it's following bad reasoning? (that's the main argument on Sc)

[Mehdi2277]

Hey scum Baby, I made a big ass post addressing you in the last page

<==== That way.

How long will it take you to actually address it?

Why are you voting Sc instead of her? If it's viability she's not unviable with the post you made before that to me at least.

[Mehdi2277]

Since wouldn't getting a bigger suspicion lynched be better?

[Mehdi2277]

From the way you sound when you attack her I thought you suspected her more then SC? If not then how much do you suspect the two?

[Mehdi2277]

UNVOTE: SCVOTE: Spice post 484

[Mehdi2277]

Well main point is I think you're argument for her is stronger then for sc and you've argued it for a while longer.

[Mehdi2277]

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

[Mehdi2277]

The way these wagons are going interest me.

[Mehdi2277]

A wagon of three people now? And anyways un can you answer how long you need to read or what did you read?

[Mehdi2277]

It's mainly being opportunistic and not as much as thought with some votes then I'd think he'd have as town, but yeah spice trumps him currently.

[Mehdi2277]

@Medhi: Do you think I'm just not understanding StrangeCoug properly? Do you understand his reasoning when he originally states it? Also, do you think any of his reasoning is scummy, especially now that he has explained more?

I understand him currently although I still think the reasoning is weak for why he pushed lurker and stayed with the wagon. Anyways the primary scummy thing is the way he's voted so the post before that kind of says why:

"It's mainly being opportunistic and not as much as thought with some votes then I'd think he'd have as town"

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

Because the whole thing with Baby just looks like a battle of what people think of a statistic that is blatantly obvious. The whole thing about answering the question is all a patience thing and how long someone is willing to wait for an answer.

I may have missed something, but this is what the Baby argument looked like to me, and it wasn't enough to vote that way.

I realize jal replied to this already but adding to 518 considering the second point of it plus most of it is mainly on lack of backing for a statistic and the reason for the vote itself on jal. When you see someone make a vote you'd call bs do you normally need to re-read the wagon to see it or just notice it as it occurs?

@Spice what did you think of jal's vote when she made it and before you saw the wagon and analyzed the wagon as a whole?

Jal how did SC's vote on spice affect your read on him?

@Mhork, and what's the scum motivation in hiding info that'll be pried out fairly quickly?

[Mehdi2277]

@Spice what did you think of jal's vote when she made it and before you saw the wagon and analyzed the wagon as a whole?

I didn't like it at the time. Still don't.


Why do you ask now? Why not a hell of a lot earlier?

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed so I wanted to ask it clearly. If it was bad before you analyzed the wagon why not say it then is the root of the problem.

[Mehdi2277]

I suspect you. Jal the main person who argued might be voting elsewhere but that is not a reason for me to stop pushing you.

[Mehdi2277]

I suspect you. Jal the main person who argued might be voting elsewhere but that is not a reason for me to stop pushing you.

Actually you're last ten to fifteen posts are trying to stir Jal up against me. No one else.

No, this is why she's scummy. Nothing.

Just you trying to stir Jal up against me.

That you continue whilst denying it is scummy as hell.

SC's posts and votes are not town SC, but then that could be explained by SC's "replace out" post.

But Medhi trying to stir up an arguement like he is.

Vote Medhi

Scum medhi means conf town Jal, since no scum would stir up an argument like that involving a buddy.

So I'm supposed to be saying my action is scummy and if I don't I'm even scummier. And you can call it stirring up against you or me wanting her to vote you. Yes I want you to look suspicious to others when I think your scummy.

@TBG

Goal of the first couple quotes to me is? I've already changed reads on the player I was referring to with that.

What would you rather me call Xis's vote? I think it's obvious I was criticizing the lurker wagon there.

Although the argument to definition on SK vs just scum on wagon is weak. Do you think it's scummy to treat a SK as scum for wagon checking purposes?

[Mehdi2277]

And UN what do you agree with from what spice said (assuming that's it and if not why the vote)?

[Mehdi2277]

Getting me confused with someone? I don't think I've ever played that game.

[Mehdi2277]

That and I'm male.

[Mehdi2277]

Since fosing someone and pushing their lynch requires a case? Cases are only worth doing in clearing things up. The reasoning against you jal's has formatted more neatly but yes it is the way you suspected her.

I think anyone who's voted you has fosed you.

Now since it's part of why you're being fosed, I noticed it was never asked, and the question was loaded since I can't see a good answer. You thought jal's vote was suspicion before analyzing the wagon, but only say so after analyzing the wagon.

[Mehdi2277]

Considering it was in the context of comparing wagons it was meant to criticize the wagon.

I think her treating SK as scum is a weak detail thing, but overall we agree at least.

[Mehdi2277]

On that note what is your read on lurker?

[Mehdi2277]

It's fine you checked the wagon just not that you didn't point out jal's vote being bad before you looked at it when you claim you thought it was bad before the wagon anaylsis.

Think Jal's vote is bad -> Point it out -> Analyze whole wagon makes sense while Think Jal's vote is bad -> Analyze wagon -> And then say her vote is bad doesn't.

[Mehdi2277]

And TBG that's fine. I kind of forgot the lurker read, and it was mainly the claim stuff I was curious.

[Mehdi2277]

UN, nearly all of my accounts online use this same username. Me liking an anime character =/= me having the username shana elsewhere.

And mhork the point is either he was dumb and didn't realize he'd be asked or he didn't do it out of scum motivation (since I think it's pretty obvious you'd be ask to clarify things if you put it vaguely).

[Mehdi2277]

How many times does he need to call you on it?

[Mehdi2277]

How did I frame the lurker thing?

[Mehdi2277]

And wasn't that from a. a while ago when you were playing and tbg wasn't and b. already explained.

[Mehdi2277]

Well mainly want to respond to the reply to that then?

[Mehdi2277]

It's fairly relevant when part of what he's doing is similar to the idea he attacked spice on. Spice not commenting on something until analyzing the wagon and jal not commenting on it until you say it when she's posted before that quite a bit.

[Mehdi2277]

Especially when it's I didn't vs I agree to make it sound like it was something she thought a while ago but never said so before.

[Mehdi2277]

609/610 comments on that more so that answers 611 unless there's something else.

[Mehdi2277]

So explain how spice calling your vote bs after wagon analyzing isn't different then not saying it immediately to your don't say every little thing I think?

The wagon on you really hasn't gone anywhere so that's why leave.

[Mehdi2277]

I think the wagon on you is less likely considering it's been there for a while with lack of growth and she argued a recent point at me.

And I'm fine with the first part of the response.

[Mehdi2277]

You not liking the answer =/= it not being the answer. I already answered it. I noticed it then wanted to ask to help explain part of the fos reasoning more before continuing with pushing you. It being a "poor attempt" is a nice way to make me want to attack you more.

[Mehdi2277]

I answered it again just then. That is the reason. It isn't some other complex reason you seem to desire, but that is it.

[Mehdi2277]

Now since it's part of why you're being fosed, I noticed it was never asked, and the question was loaded since I can't see a good answer.

And diverting and showing scummy are pretty much the same thing just worded differently with different connotations. Even if they were separate the motive is the same. I want you lynched.

[Mehdi2277]

Yes I believe that. Your point?

[Mehdi2277]

I'm actually not against chaining lynches as long as the idea is based on one scum flip being true (if you're going to say if he flips town the other will flip scum that's just an easy way to get two mislynches, but if requires a scum flip either you're bussing or know it won't work so it's not as scummy). Anyways another problem with it is why vote me when SC is easier to lynch if she truly believes that.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm actually not against chaining lynches as long as the idea is based on one scum flip being true (if you're going to say if he flips town the other will flip scum that's just an easy way to get two mislynches, but if requires a scum flip either you're bussing or know it won't work so it's not as scummy). Anyways another problem with it is why vote me when SC is easier to lynch if she truly believes that.

UNVOTE:

Mehdi gets called on trying to shift the SC wagon to baby.
Mehdi now trying to keep the wagon on SC and off of himself.

It looks like Mehdi flipped what he was trying to do right after he got called on it.

VOTE: Mehdi

I think you need to read and think a bit more. No where in that post am I trying to change my vote to SC. I'm saying if baby thinks SC must be scum why not vote him when he's had more people suspect him. If me and him are both scum then it'd make sense to vote the person with more suspicion to help.

[Mehdi2277]

And anyways the SC case is essentially lack of thought and being opportunistic with votes.

[Mehdi2277]

SC has been suspected for vote patterns. Spice has been suspected for vote reason on Jal. Spice is fosing me right now. Lurker was suspected in the past, but his wagon deflated based on the way he claimed. Mhork was suspected in the past but the suspicion just kind of died off (for me because I think how he reacted to votes with continued pressure was good). Each player likely has 2 cards with 2 players having 3. Lurker has claimed he's a 1 shot watcher.

I think that summarizes game state.

[Mehdi2277]

Fos/vote are essentially the same and you can continue to yell at me over diction if it pleases you. It being a town/town fight only works if I believe it. Post 484 gave reasons to suspect you, but I guess that post not making sense fits with you wanting everything to be literal.

Diverting/pushing both have the goal of a lynch and that's pretty much all it does on someone.

My reasoning can be jal's reasoning.

You pushing that votes aren't foses is dumb and more of you trying to argue diction.

Why should I give a reason before. I knew why I was doing it, so there's no need for me to say while I'm doing it that it's because of that. Especially when it weakens it since I wanted your response to that loaded question.

Me still pushing you is me still diverting to you even though you want to treat the two as separate.

You could quote the wiki. I could also quote win stats if it pleases you that shows either I have some knowledge or am pretty lucky but either way means following me works.

[Mehdi2277]

Oh and to make clear that response is continued fos of you by me. You're trying to make me look scummy for diction (somehow if I vote someone then it isn't an fos at the same time).

[Mehdi2277]

Or you can have fun reading 20 pages late at night and try to see how much you remember that's not on the people you suspect most.

[Mehdi2277]

Yes since I have trouble remember what CS stuff I did last night when I chose to work at 3am. If you're going to do something late and expect remembering everything it probably won't work too well so I find his question reasonable.

Since I think she's quite a bit more suspicious. Caring about wagon size only really matters when the scum reads are equal or near equal.

[Mehdi2277]

And you still need to explain why you think that.

[Mehdi2277]

TBG the short counter argument is scum would be stupid to not have any idea who's trusted and who's not even if you don't say it clearly. Clear logic helps figure things out more even if it does reveal something to mafia that they likely knew already or changes little. It's more beneficial to be open then closed on everything.

Jal what do you want me to post though? My opinion isn't changing drastically beyond lurker's fairly confirmed scum (although to me more for his reaction at saying tracker then saying it).

[Mehdi2277]

So knowing that Lurker is probably scum does not change your opinion whatsoever on anything? You've been thinking Lurker is town all this time and arguing against me about him being scum, and none of your reads change as a result?

What reads of mine were based on him or should change? Spice doesn't change considering she was never one of the people voting him and tried to get a wagon on you based on your vote on him. I didn't scum reads on the people voting him, so anything that should be changing?

Continuing uber how much sense does she make as a lurker partner? She was the first person to vote him, pushed him quite a bit, and now he's nearly confirmed scum and that's nowhere in your read of jal.

Before I forget I did get a card saying I got 100 dollars. Hasn't done anything that I notice.

Cheery jal actually posted a case, but the short version is she finds something jal did bs -> she analyzes the wagon jal is on -> she then votes jal for having a bs vote and supports it with statistics she never shows and tried to shift the burden of proof on the statistics to jal.

Vote wise considering lurker can self hammer if I vote him I'll let him at L-2 so people can say whatever else and then have him lynched tomorrow (extending the day too much doesn't help anyone so if you have something you want to say just say it).

[Mehdi2277]

Oh and adding jake how am I scummy for defending lurker a lot? I thought he was town so I defended him. I gave reasons for the defense back then too that you could have argued more at the time if you didn't believe them and found him scummiest.

Tbg role spec probably won't help considering the nature of the role (and I think people said to not cc even if you were a watcher). Multiple people with the same role when it's 1 shot is something I find believable.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm assuming that's why. So why is it?

[Mehdi2277]

And can you explain the gut? Which part of my interactions with lurker was it?

[Mehdi2277]

I also find associative gut to be strange. How would you define gut?

[Mehdi2277]

I still don't see how the defense is bad beyond it being with someone who's mafia. If you want to quote the defense itself and show me what points seem fake sure, but currently it sounds like arguing that I was wrong to have him as a town read makes me more likely scum with him.

Not sure what you're referring to about role fishing although I think I did discuss reaction fishing near the beginning of the game.

[Mehdi2277]

Cheery can you hold on the lurker vote? I'd rather just let 1 day go for last comments so people know the day's going to end soon in advance vs just voting him now where he'll likely self hammer when he's online next.

P-edit: Or now depending on when he votes.

[Mehdi2277]

Considering you read that and unless you just skip posts that don't mention you then the current lurker wagon doesn't really need a long think on it when he's pretty much claimed scum already. Nice skimming I guess.

[Mehdi2277]

I'll read the last two UN posts in a minute but here UN:

If I was truly sick of this game, I would have shown the information above, but I didn't.

I'm getting closer and clsoer to that tipping point in which

I accidentaly out all my allies that I know in this thread

because It went faster then I wanted to go.

Scum claim.

[Mehdi2277]

I'm guessing the next theory involves jal hard bussing lurker but I find that unlikely so I think she's town.

[Mehdi2277]

Well I'm biased since currently I think spice is likely scum and was pushed a lot by jal and lurker is almost definitely scum and pushed a lot by jal.

But sure I'll look at your case:

759 is looking at wagon dynamics so I don't see how it's scummy at all. If someone is a pain to lynch after taking into account player level then it's generally a scum tell.

760 considering it's to lurker and is just I already explained something so you shouldn't need to be asking which while sassy isn't really scummy.

761 with spice's lack of ever giving the statistics but using it as a main point makes it valid to push and is part of why spice is suspected.

762 I won't argue although by itself it's not a major thing.

[Mehdi2277]

You realize when someone scum claims you can heavily town read him and then flip. A scum claim does that. And I don't think UN is the type to commit suicide protecting a scum buddy who scum claimed and probably just never bothered to read most posts and kept his early read of lurker.

[Mehdi2277]

I'll bet it won't kill us to give him the time and while it won't be divine it'll be better then you think.

[Mehdi2277]

Or he only read earlier pages and just glanced at current pages.

[Mehdi2277]

I don't expect to see 6 people with lost votes so things should be fine.

[Mehdi2277]

I don't think the misinformation was intentional since it got him caught, but the first I'm fine with the reasoning for.

[Mehdi2277]

That's a definite possibility, especially given what he said about giving up his allies because he wasn't happy with how things were going

Yeah UN has responded to that already. The problem I really have with jal scum isn't the lurker bus (which would likely get caught the moment someone decided to really read that post and UN reading play catch up has a good chance of seeing it) but seeing spice as town. And while they unvoted each other the way spice and jal argued doesn't seem like scum buddies and of the two I suspect the first more.

[Mehdi2277]

I guess if I'm wrong on spice I'd be willing to accept jal as likely scum.

[Mehdi2277]

Clearing a mislynch doesn't really matter now or later so doing it now doesn't really make much sense still.

[Mehdi2277]

Lurker flipping town doesn't work unless he likes claiming scum as town. Jal flipping scum/town still makes lurker scum.

[Mehdi2277]

A caught scum slip that would likely be caught anyway. If a scum buddy is dying either way then bussing and picking up some town cred is fairly basic play. Lurker is being lynched today since while jal scum is possible him scum is fairly confirmed.

[Mehdi2277]

Jake people can believe different things then you. Jal is arguable day 2 for a lynch but not now.

[Mehdi2277]

The day would be over and locked if that was the case. Cheery do you want to read the rest at night or day?

[Mehdi2277]

I think UN is done reading and with his vote, ending the day now is fine VOTE: lurker. I think that's a hammer although if someone hasn't voted lurker and wants to put him at L+1 to be sure that works.

[Mehdi2277]

Well if I say lynch cheery and if he flips scum lynch jal if I'm scum then either I know flip you town and what I said was pointless or your my scum buddy and bussing is nice for the town + by itself it isn't going to be enough to propel a lynch.

Anyways it's more theory and in practice it mostly depends what I think of the player already.

[Mehdi2277]

I've done both although I do lean more on if this one is scum then this one I think.

And you're going to have to explain to me how jal is your strongest town read and robert is probably town. Plus why numberQ and agent_ireland are town.

[Mehdi2277]

Yeah but theorizing on something isn't bad. That and it's really just stating an association. If two people seem linked in alignment to correspond and I see one flip scum then pushing the other just fits.

Currently I'm really mainly curious on numberq. Lurking I'd consider a null tell.

[Mehdi2277]

And that same scum miller got nominated for a scummy. Kind of means something and if you want an opinion of a non townie who read the game I commented and said sala played pretty great. Policy lynching millers is a bad idea if you don't care much about their play.

I'll check the cards I got later, but I've gotten 2 already (one was at night and the other I mentioned during the day before).

Where did gnr mention the kills like that in the OP?

[Mehdi2277]

Yeah I've received both already.

[Mehdi2277]

Well ignoring the wagon you can look at people's opinion of him before the scum claim. After the scum claim they meant little by nature.

[Mehdi2277]

How? Since every vote on lurker can be called bussing if you don't explain what's forced about it? If it's prior suspicion then how has cheery affected your read on that slot along with anything else since then for him. I remember you commenting on sc, but I don't remember commenting on his replacement.

As for vig kills I don't really see why spice wouldn't be vig shot. Really until I see where the mafia have guns in this game comes from I'll go with the mod's rule of flavor won't affect things.

[Mehdi2277]

Xis I don't suspect currently. AI I'm fine with but for both can you explain a bit more on why? Is it just the reads list spice gave since that seems a minor reason to kill her for lean scum.

[Mehdi2277]

By itself it is (and her scum reads in that post vs her scum reads at the end of the day weren't identical).

[Mehdi2277]

I did that intentionally since I don't see how jake is getting as a scum tell for them two most (jal commented on it before too).

[Mehdi2277]

Medhi, what are your thoughts on Xis?

Xis I don't suspect currently.

More specifically multiple minor things in play that add together to form a town read on him. Nothing major by itself and if you want me to expand on it sure. And why xis specifically?

Safety if you can find one game where scum have killed based on voting records and not voting intent or many other rreaspns night 1 I'll consider the theory, but I've never seen kills for that basis (and mafia didn't kill both spice and un since mafia vigs are very powerful and very unlikely to exist).

And my old monopoly theory still applies. An actual monopoly game is being played and the way the dice roll at planned times determine occurrences and as time passes cards will swap. I was unsure whether to reveal this but considering it doesn't reveal my role sure, I also got a chance that gave me a 1 shot doc. I can reveal who it was on, but the main point is chance/community chest cards can give other role powers beyond things like a vote. If no one lost a card then my new theory is the dead people's cards go to living people (which was done in a past mafia card game hosted by SC if you want to see how something similar worked).

Continuing I've never not vig'd and I know enough people who'd shoot every night as vig.

Lastly at this point good part people I don't want to vote and partly lurking (plus bias in I replaced him when he was scum in a just ended game) VOTE: numberQ.

[Mehdi2277]

The second part is a scum tell, but mostly don't want to currently vote you, jake, tbg, xis, cheery, safety, and mhork. Which leaves agent and numberQ and between the two I prefer numberQ.

I lost 0 of the properties I had.

Reasons on Xis:

• post 96 both partly for the vote and the question choice to SC which doesn't feel like something scum would care about or think to question on. Some other questioning like his current meta question to cheery also seems not like something scum would consider to ask.
  
• The way he treated you and baby. Primarily how he ends up just listing posts you talk with each other when he realizes it doesn't help much to analyze which looks like he isn't trying to just look like he's scum hunting.
  
• Town reads he's had.

[Mehdi2277]

That it doesn't really make a difference. I know he's flaked out as scum considering I've replaced him when he did that.

You can also argue which of the people I don't want to vote for I should be willing to if you want the vote elsewhere (I expect cheery to be argued, but really my read on him is a simple tonal read).

[Mehdi2277]

List of Games numberQ has replaced out of:

• Micro 24
  
• Mafiastuck
  
• newbie 1156
  
• Worst Roles
  
• Artemis Fowl Large
  
• Futurama
  
• Tit for tat

So 7 replace outs for a total of I believe 13 games. I think him being inactive isn't alignment related.

[Mehdi2277]

The second part is a scum tell, but

mostly

don't want to currently vote you, jake, tbg, xis, cheery, safety, and mhork. Which leaves agent and numberQ and between the two I prefer numberQ.

[Mehdi2277]

I know. Part of the reason I fake claimed vig is because I like claiming vig as one. The only time I've been one on this site I claimed day 2 and the other time I was a vig off site I ended up claiming day 1 (although that more for being known to try to kill someone n0). There's one other time but considering I died n0 that doesn't really help.

[Mehdi2277]

Mafia getting a vig shot is very rare. I think there's only been one or two mafia vigs in 13ps for the history of this site.

I mainly think that robert's choice to vote jal twice makes him pretty likely town. As scum double voting is fairly useful and to put it on someone that no one wanted to vote as well I don't think is likely for him.

[Mehdi2277]

Tbg was the person I chose. I considered jal but I was expecting UN alive and assumed jal might be kept alive by scum to have un keep on fosing her.

Possible yes. Done in about 1 percent of games on site this size also yes.

[Mehdi2277]

I don't see how new makes the tell null. It's not the fact he had the double vote but the fact that if he's scum when he has the ability to control a lynch more he chooses one of the least likely people to be lynched to vote for? Because of that I think the suspicion was genuine and he's town.

[Mehdi2277]

You may want to ask the mod whether a jail safe card and a night power are equivalent. I doubt it.

[Mehdi2277]

Do all scum players give out non-geneuine opinions? If that was the case why haven't we won already?

My use of genuine generally means I don't think he was doing it with an ulterior motive.

[Mehdi2277]

You may want to ask the mod whether a jail safe card and a night power are equivalent. I doubt it.

Specifically whether if I used a chance card at night on someone would be something you'd track me to.

[Mehdi2277]

Jal when did you receive your new property card? Was it the start or end of the night?

[Mehdi2277]

Lastly can you confirm whether you got lurker's other card or not jal?

[Mehdi2277]

I don't think lurker fake claimed cards. If he did lack of cc means it'd have to be a partner's card and I don't see why fake claim a card not electric company. I'm mainly curious whether lurker's other card went to a person at the start of the night or the end. It's likely the first since that's the way I see safety's claim working best and fake claiming a cop guilty as scum is also fairly stupid and overly confident as scum for someone fairly new.

Not quite sure what you mean on the PoE thing, but currently it's something I'm fine using to look at suspects.

[Mehdi2277]

Which is? I'll bother arguing with him when a reason for it appears, but currently I can see fine a card power not counting as a visit.

[Mehdi2277]

Who do you currently think is town?