Mafia 60: Face-to-Face - Game over!

[Patrick]

He knows that now. He didn't know that when he proposed it. How does this make him more town? Same with the speed of the wagon. How does that make him more town?

Andrew knows the ppl he is playing with, and he is semi experienced. I doubt he thought he could push a no lynch agenda through. As for the wagon, I made it clear that I thought there was oppotunistic scum on it. It felt more like going for an easy lynch than bussing a scumbuddy.

[Thesp]

As for the speed of the bandwagon, those were the reactions that I was looking to get. I wanted to see who was going to try to inconspicuously hop on, or push for an early "sure lynch".

This is pretty blatantly an attempt to discredit current and potential voters from voting you,

even if they have legitimate reasons

, and is scummy to the core. I am super happy with my vote. AndrewS should be lynched, ChannelDelibird should be vigged.

[Thesp]

Incidentally, if there is a vig in this game, he's pretty powerful and should kill every night (or at the very least, tonight).

[Glork]

I'd kill every night if I were vig.


I'd be all "BLAM! BANG! Yer dead!!"

[AndrewS]

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make? While it may not be that convincing if I am not a given, I am simply trying to explain my thought processes.

[Thesp]

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make?

Are you arguing that townspeople cannot have legitimate reasons for voting for someone else who is town? That would be fairly close to the pinnacle of an irrational argument.

[AndrewS]

No, I am saying that from my viewpoint I believe many of the ones voting me to be scum because I find their logic and arguments spurious. Take CES, for example. He has justified his votes 4 times now by saying "Lynch X, it'll be fun!". These were not just in the random votes stage. Now, of course, this would look different to someone who was NOT convinced of my innocence. I admit that. If someone were to attack you (assuming you are town), you would find their arguments to be illogical as well.

[AndrewS]

Reply edit: Sorry, it was only twice - I'm getting my games confused. He's done it more in another game that I'm in with him. Regardless, though, it's not the best argument, nor should it be the only thing posted with a vote.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Regardless, though, it's not the best argument, nor should it be the only thing posted with a vote.

The "it'll be fun" has very little to do with my vote for you. In both cases, it was meant as an non-serious exhortation.

[AndrewS]

It was the only thing you posted along with your vote. While it may be non-serious, it was still suggesting that others hop on.

[Thesp]

No, I am saying that from my viewpoint I believe many of the ones voting me to be scum because I find their logic and arguments spurious. Take CES, for example. He has justified his votes 4 times now by saying "Lynch X, it'll be fun!". These were not just in the random votes stage.

How is this any different than how CES always acts? You haven't provoked anything except justified voters.

If someone were to attack you (assuming you are town), you would find their arguments to be illogical as well.

This is also false. They may be justified/warranted in their arguments, even if they are incorrect. Suppose someone was "Townie A". On D2, they claimed Cop and fingered a player as guilty. On D3, they claimed they were actually only townie the whole time and lied on the prior day. Would "Townie B" be justified and logical in voting for them? According to your argument, they would not be. This is whole approach you've taken is what's known in, in technical terms, as a

crap post hoc justification

. You make a move more likely to be done by scum (with the simplest explanation being you are more likely to

be

scum), and try to justify it in whatever way you can after the fact. I cannot imagine my vote moving at this point.

[Mgm]

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

[IH]

Thesp=Good posting.

CES=Mad wagoning skillz yo, as usual.

AndrewS=Scum.

That is all for now.

[Nightfall]

I demand more nightfall posts.

I am able to post once or twice per game per real life day.

So far this game has been running for 3 days (not including today).
I have only not posted in the last two days because I have been trying to take in everything that has been said.

I will

FOS: AndrewS

though.
I would say more, I had actually planned to, but then I read Thesp's latest comment and just like MGM thought "Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself". So yeah, as odd as it sounds, and as hard as it feals to say.... I currently agree with Thesp.....

If you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and wash my mouth out with some soap...

[Nightfall]

*My 3 day comment was actually ment to reference the time when I first posted which was also when I was able to start this game.*

[AndrewS]

If anyone has any questions that I can answer, I would be more than willing to. Otherwise, I have posted my story, everything that I know to post. When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

[Thesp]

When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

= also something more frequently said by scum than town

[IH]

Agreeance heading towards Thesp. = ) Would you specify who we should seriously reconsider?

[AndrewS]

Certainly. CES, Adele and Thesp.

[Glork]

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

[Ether]

The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what? (I don't mind Thesp's statistics argument, incidentally, and it even rings a bell, but I don't feel it's good enough for a lynch.)

He knows that now. He didn't know that when he proposed it. How does this make him more town?

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this

is

an invitational. We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or sleep with). Off the top of my head, I don't remember even newbie games on 'Scum where an unoptimal no-lynch agenda actually got through. It in no way made Andrew more town; just, I didn't find it scummy. (Now, his own behavior after the vote...well, if his wagon didn't go ridiculous, I'd probably still be on it.)

Same with the speed of the wagon. How does that make him more town?

Many of the people who placed votes on him did so for bullshit reasons. IH, can you explain how a vote for no-lynch equates to an actual no-lynch? Seems pretty harmless to me. Where specifically was the WIFOM you were talking about?

As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else.

A (*shrug*) at Thesp's 151.

Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Why?

I'd be all "BLAM! BANG! Yer dead!!"

*bangs better*

He only has 463 posts though. That's, like, not a lot.

(Back in my playstyle, sonny, I'd have danced a

jig

to have 463 posts. 'Course, what with deflation and all, we couldn't ever hit numbers like that anyway. We were hard lurker types, sonny. We became goons after a few months, and by God, we

liked

it.)

One more thing.

I'm just saying that if I WAS mafia, I would know that a no-lynch would be a useless ploy, and therefore would not use it.

Damn. The reasons

were

bullshit when they were placed, I swear.

[Zindaras]

Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

You were totally serious man!!! Don't try to deny it now!!!!

Unvote, Vote: Gkrlo

for backtracking!!!!!!!

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this

is

an invitational.

We really do <3 you.

We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or

sleep with

).

O_o

[Mgm]

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

[Mgm]

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

[Patrick]

I'm not really feeling the CES wagon.

Unvote, Vote: IH

He just seems to be cruising along too easily on this AndrewS thing, and I don't like his reasons. I don't see much curiosity from him. Also, the sucking up to Thesp... I've seen that before.

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

This caught my interest. Are you saying that Andrew bandwagoners have made themselves into easy targets for oppotunistic scum? Are you going to look at IH's play with a straight face and tell me that he isn't oppotunistic scum? >_>