Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[StrangerCoug]

Vote: Nobody Special

for sucking.

[StrangerCoug]

UNVOTE: Nobody Special
VOTE: Mogadishu Jones for voting everyone.

[StrangerCoug]

UNVOTE: Mogadishu Jones
VOTE: Mehdi2277

I'm in the "get serious" camp too, but the RVS is the RVS and nothing is going to change that. You didn't behave like this in Dirty Dealing.

[StrangerCoug]

The PR discussion in Dirty Dealing was something you could legitimately describe as serious. Not here.

[StrangerCoug]

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

What leads you to that conclusion? In my opinion, we're now into serious discussion, since that's what Mehdi2277 seems to want.

I think that shows the point of I always play seriously.

OK. We don't need a fight over playstyle differences.

UNVOTE: Mehdi2277

[StrangerCoug]

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?

Much of it is faulty memory on my part (now that I'm looking at the Dirty Dealing game, much of your behavior is actually the same), and I concede that. I just thought that the discussion of post restrictions in Dirty Dealing was something you could legitimately take seriously, while I was baffled as to why you seemed to treat Robert2424 as really wanting to lynch Lurker because of his username.

[StrangerCoug]

I want to say neutral.

[StrangerCoug]

I want to say neutral.

Finish the sentence:

I want to say neutral but....

I still have a bad taste in my mouth about the Robert2424 vote. Sometimes an RVS vote is just an RVS vote, like it or not. There is no way for Robert2424 to convince anyone that Lurker is going to live up to his name. I understand Mehdi2277 doesn't like the joke vote, but still...

[StrangerCoug]

@StrangerCoug

: I read all of Dirty Dealing, so I sort of see where you're coming from. Do you think your perceptions of that game are more or less instructive from modding it rather than playing it? I'm having trouble phrasing this but I mean could you pick up on things more subtle than salamence faking a post-restriction?

Not really. If I pay much attention to anything other than the players' votes or the players talking to me, I make much of the same kinds of mental notes as a player (e.g. so and so's in trouble, so and so's really a driving force in this game). I find that modding

INHIBITS

picking up on tells. Players do not give the mod the same expectation to have an eye for detail as they do other players—you are really expected to keep an accurate vote count, post it regularly, make sure you process role actions right, and that's it. It's a bit like getting away with cheating from a test in theory—in practice, you're not doing the work and you don't learn how to come up with the answer yourself.

[StrangerCoug]

Mhork I never claimed reaction fishing. Skim too much?

Nope. You were reaction fishing and then you were all like 'is that what you call it here?' and stuff. I remember.

But if youre asking about baby spice then yeah. Reasons=math

unvote

The speed of this wagon is ridiculous

Because early wagons are bad, right?

Not a big fan of this post. There is a reason I laid off Mehdi2277 (other than my misremembering Dirty Dealing, but beside the point), and I don't know where you're coming up with anyone implying that early wagons are bad.

VOTE: Lord Mhork

[StrangerCoug]

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

I thought it was implied in my post that I don't like Lord Mhork's claim that you were reaction fishing, which you deny and I feel runs counter to the "take everything seriously" mode that you claim to take in every game.

[StrangerCoug]

Pal, did you even read my last post? I amended my reaction fishing statement after it was clear I had made a mistake.

UNVOTE: Lord Mhork

Ok, My first in a (hopefully) series of reads. First off I will read Lord Mhork.

His first vote, Post #119, He votes me for the same reason as Jal did, or as they call it, sheeping. He goes on to say that Jal is town.

One of these would be a bit of a slip, but permissible. Two however, seems like buddying.

In post 126 He says that Medhi was reaction fishing. He also said that early wagons were bad.

Medhi did indeed support reaction fishing as said in post #24. "It's the ideal time to reaction fish". However, she did not do so.

In post #130 he stills disagrees with the wagon point when It has been pointed out there is some sheeping on the wagon.

He also FOS's Robert, with no explanation other that "Get an avatar".

I have a scum read on this guy. I also think I may have convinced myself for pushing for his lynch.

Vote: Lord Mhork

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

Second, where did I say that early wagons were bad? Oh you must mean that

sarcastic

remark that I said was

sarcasm

and was obviously

sarcasm

because I was helping to build an early wagon.

Third, what are you even talking about with the sheep and me disagreeing with the wagon point? How do those two correlate in the slightest?

Fourth, you are an idiot. If you actually, you know, read my posts, it would miraculously become clear that the FoS was not due to the lack of avatar, but rather the reaction fishing! Egasp! Brilliant!

Fifth, your vote on me is bad and you should feel bad with your poorly done IIoA.

Sold.

L-1 VOTE: Lurker

Liking the two highest posters for town is probably a good idea if youre scum.

Not saying you're scum, but I may need to remember that later

This comes off as backtracking from a variant of "too townie."

FoS: Mogadishu Jones

.

Vote: strangercoug

Would you like to explain? This is the first time you give me any mention.

[StrangerCoug]

The game's just unusual for me. I don't usually struggle with Day 1 cases as either alignment.

[StrangerCoug]

No.

[StrangerCoug]

It's just... really hard for me to get my head into this, and I concede that.

[StrangerCoug]

The "last to confirm" bit was because I usually look at the bottom of the PM for how to confirm and it was above the cards, confusing me.

[StrangerCoug]

And your reason for your lurker vote?

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.

[StrangerCoug]

The answer to that question depends on the size of the game, but for a 13-player game the commonly accepted answer is no. It's L-1.

[StrangerCoug]

The hammer risk is why you give L-1 warnings.

[StrangerCoug]

Announcing L-1 doesnt negate the risk of a speed hammer. Why not just play it safe?

Why play it safe? Why bend over backwards for other people's carelessness, for that matter?

[StrangerCoug]

Ditto here. Jones can go either way. He comes off as trying to adjust from one way of playing Mafia to another, though.

[StrangerCoug]

Announcing L-1 doesnt negate the risk of a speed hammer. Why not just play it safe?

Why play it safe? Why bend over backwards for other people's carelessness, for that matter?

Wo's talking about carelessness? I'm talking about well veiled hammers to end the day waaaayy earlier than necessary. In this case, its moot as lurker has claimed.

Any way you chop it up attracts negative attention to the hammerer, whether you're not paying attention or are trying to hide the fact that you're hammering (which is hard to do, since you have to bold it or use the vote tags). You're talking about vote shenanigans, which is not the norm here (though I've seen it here).

[StrangerCoug]

I don't think you're scummy for being used to another way of playing, but there are lots of ways mafiascum.net is different from other Mafia sites. Where I came from (which is better-known as a machinima site than a Mafia site—in fact, Mafia is confined to just a single thread there), votes were secret.

[StrangerCoug]

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

My interpretation of the claim is that the watcher comes from one of the cards, which, as far as I know, everybody has. If it were not tied to the cards, I don't think he would have claimed "vanilla with a one-shot ability"; I think he would have dropped the "vanilla" qualifier. The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

[StrangerCoug]

Spoiler:

VOTE: Lurker for lurking... wait

@Lurker

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.

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

I like

VOTE: Lurker

for thinking that he could just drop his vote and not help move the game from RVS.

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?

Pal, did you even read my last post? I amended my reaction fishing statement after it was clear I had made a mistake.

UNVOTE: Lord Mhork

Ok, My first in a (hopefully) series of reads. First off I will read Lord Mhork.

His first vote, Post #119, He votes me for the same reason as Jal did, or as they call it, sheeping. He goes on to say that Jal is town.

One of these would be a bit of a slip, but permissible. Two however, seems like buddying.

In post 126 He says that Medhi was reaction fishing. He also said that early wagons were bad.

Medhi did indeed support reaction fishing as said in post #24. "It's the ideal time to reaction fish". However, she did not do so.

In post #130 he stills disagrees with the wagon point when It has been pointed out there is some sheeping on the wagon.

He also FOS's Robert, with no explanation other that "Get an avatar".

I have a scum read on this guy. I also think I may have convinced myself for pushing for his lynch.

Vote: Lord Mhork

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

Second, where did I say that early wagons were bad? Oh you must mean that

sarcastic

remark that I said was

sarcasm

and was obviously

sarcasm

because I was helping to build an early wagon.

Third, what are you even talking about with the sheep and me disagreeing with the wagon point? How do those two correlate in the slightest?

Fourth, you are an idiot. If you actually, you know, read my posts, it would miraculously become clear that the FoS was not due to the lack of avatar, but rather the reaction fishing! Egasp! Brilliant!

Fifth, your vote on me is bad and you should feel bad with your poorly done IIoA.

Sold.

L-1 VOTE: Lurker

One of these things is not like the others.

VOTE: StrangerCoug

This is flawed. I don't have to agree with everybody else on why Lurker is scummy; if I see something else instead, that's just as good.

@StrangerCoug

: What were you sold on in the quoted #227 by Mhork?

I answered something like this already.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm good to go. I'm still happy with my vote.

[StrangerCoug]

How so?

[StrangerCoug]

You just do, course I've only seen you Mod, your posts seem like its almost not the same person? Idk why.

I really can't explain. It feels like you're trying to compare apples and oranges—modding and playing are two entirely different things, as I discussed earlier (though on the more specific subject on if I pick up on tells players give off as a mod).

[StrangerCoug]

Xisiqomelir and Lord Mhork are both town reads with the latter being a good deal more solid.

[StrangerCoug]

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

My interpretation of the claim is that the watcher comes from one of the cards, which, as far as I know, everybody has. If it were not tied to the cards, I don't think he would have claimed "vanilla with a one-shot ability"; I think he would have dropped the "vanilla" qualifier. The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

When he first claimed, he just said Vanilla Townie. He wouldn't drop the Vanilla qualifier if his role says "Vanilla Townie" and one of his cards has a power.

This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm

None of this was said when StrangerCoug voted for Lurker. StrangerCoug quoted Mhorkie Pie's post which had nothing relevant to do with Lurker and said "sold" followed by a vote like that post was the driving factor to do so.

Also, a lot of that stuff didn't happen

Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

[StrangerCoug]

This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

I am having trouble understanding what exactly about the wording of his claim that you believe doesn't warrant an unvote.

The fact that it comes from a card and that everybody has cards to my knowledge. It's basically a scaled-down 100 Boxes with the boxes already open to start.

Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

Well, firstly we're talking about the reasons you voted for Lurker, and we can start off with Mhork not voting for our dear Boberto.

Whoops—misunderstood that part. It still stands that Lurker's vote on Lord Mhork is inherently ridiculous.

[StrangerCoug]

Why am I getting more solid? I haven't actually done anything so far except get on the lurker wagon.

You're the bigger standout to me when it comes to scumhunting, though Xisiqomelir has done little to harm his position.

[StrangerCoug]

But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?

Of the four people besides Lord Mhork to post cases that were quoted in your post, Agent_Ireland's vote is clearly random while the other three discuss post #44. Lord Mhork's post discusses Lurker's later actions, and your "odd one out" suggests that going with him was a bad thing. Is something wrong with Mhork's post?

This:

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.

Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.

I saw his post as a counterattack demonstrating that Lurker's vote was weak, especially #4 since he insults Lurker in the first sentence.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm not. I'm more confident in the claim than you are, but the circumstances don't make him town per se.

[StrangerCoug]

Yes. It's clearly from a card, and as I've hammered into everybody's head, I think everybody has cards.

[StrangerCoug]

This has nothing to do with Mhork and everything to do with you. Your vote was the only one quoted which was a sheep (AI voted for RVS reasons, Jal for non-participation, Mhork for unhelpfulness, Mogadishu for #44). I find it disturbing because it wasn't even a sheep of what I take to be a case (Mhork's #227).

I'd respond, but:

Since he's right here, let's get clarification.

[StrangerCoug]

It is true that the way Lurker worded his claim is not giving me reason to unvote him, but that I found it strange is not why I'm not unvoting him; it's the fact that he claims it is card-based. The talk about "powers come from cards" is getting tiring.

[StrangerCoug]

So you don't believe that some cards give powers?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you even on the same page? Read #460 one more time, then I'll get back to you.

[StrangerCoug]

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?

It's plausible, but based on information we do not know for sure right now. I think, if we got rid of all the cards, the game would become a mountainous; the opinions of others may vary.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you even on the same page? Read #460 one more time, then I'll get back to you.

Nothing regarding any of your interactions with Lurker nor explanations make sense.

Your vote doesn't make sense.

Your explanation for not unvoting doesn't make sense. I can't even understand why you aren't unvoting given any variation of your explanations.

This does not make sense:

It is true that the way Lurker worded his claim is not giving me reason to unvote him, but that I found it strange is not why I'm not unvoting him; it's the fact that he claims it is card-based. The talk about "powers come from cards" is getting tiring.

Right now why I think you're not making sense of my post is because you understand my refusal to unvote Lurker incorrectly. Let's set the record straight: My vote is a basic sheep of Lord Mhork's defense/counterattack (he's established it's a bit of both) of Lurker in #227, which basically accuses him of not reading the game. Why I didn't unvote Lurker is because cards can end up with absolutely anyone regardless of alignment as far as I know. I never said anything to the effect of disbelieving that cards give powers, which is why I questioned your understanding of my Lurker read in #478.

Is there anything else that I need to clarify for you?

[StrangerCoug]

Is there anything else that I need to clarify for you?

I take it the answer to this question is no, Jal.

[StrangerCoug]

Regardless of everything, how about the way it was worded makes you pause?

The fact that the claim makes it clear it's a card ability. I believe his card claim, and the more I think about Mehdi2277's post, the more I think it's a good point, but I fail to see why something alignment-independent is reason to say "Hold everything, we're not lynching Lurker."

When the kids are gone, I want to look at you and Baby Spice. Forced to unvote Lurker in favor of one of you two right now, though, it'd be Baby Spice; I think there is a pro-town motivation to you trying to figure out what I mean by my posts.

[StrangerCoug]

FoS: Mehdi2277

I understood it when you asked Jal that question, but you basically repeating the question to Agent_Ireland is coming off as buddying me too closely. It's unnerving.

[StrangerCoug]

@StrangeCoug

:

The fact that the claim makes it clear it's a card ability. I believe his card claim, and the more I think about Mehdi2277's post, the more I think it's a good point, but I fail to see why something alignment-independent is reason to say "Hold everything, we're not lynching Lurker."

I don't think claiming a power itself is worth taking a vote off someone.

Would you say a good portion of what's holding you back is the amount of people who got off his wagon and don't want to lynch him anymore?

That plays a factor, yes.

I've looked at the interactions with you and Baby Spice, and right now I'm failing to see how anything talked about in #500 are "lies"; nor how they address your concern. Baby Spice also seems to overuse the word "strange", implying that there's something inherently unusual in how you are handling the case, which I think is false.

UNVOTE: Lurker
VOTE: Baby Spice

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: What's the vote count?

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: I hereby request replacement. I'm sorry, but I feel really detached from the game.