Mafia 64: The New "C9" - Game over!

[Yosarian2]

EBWOP: Wow, that's ridiculous. Why the hell was he replaced?

Yeah, seems wierd, he was only gone for like 2 days.

[MrBuddyLee]

On D1, BM posted no relevant game posts for a week. That's sufficient cause for removal for me if the mod so chooses... if you know you've gotta afk for a week early in the game, don't sign up!

Plus...

now hurry up and kill me. i DO hate a dragged out demise...

combined with his self-hammer in another game recently makes him an excellent candidate for replacement on grounds of wrecking/unbalancing the game intentionally. The absence plus the irresponsibility == yay, replacement.

[HungryJoe]

I can agree with that, he ruined the townie side of another game(as a townie) I'm in recently, so I think that BM is probably trying to intentionally ruin games.

On the other parts: Glork, I will buy that it was a typo, because it's nothing more than WIFOM, but it's definitely no point in your favor, nonetheless. Just speculation though, and no more, I suppose.

And HH, nice catch on TCS. What worries me more than the catch is that he doesn't seem to care at all that he's contradicting himself? He's been this way all game, I think, but it's kinda disturbing to me, at least.

[Yosarian2]

On D1, BM posted no relevant game posts for a week. That's sufficient cause for removal for me if the mod so chooses... if you know you've gotta afk for a week early in the game, don't sign up!

Plus...

now hurry up and kill me. i DO hate a dragged out demise...

combined with his self-hammer in another game recently makes him an excellent candidate for replacement on grounds of wrecking/unbalancing the game intentionally. The absence plus the irresponsibility == yay, replacement.

I tend to think BM was not playing "irresponsibly" here at all, in fact, his play in this game so far has been much better then how I've seen him play in the past. But whatever, I'm not going to second guess the mod in the middle of the game, we can talk about it after the game's over.

[YogurtBandit]

@#$%!

Why does everyone keep up with this mantra of me acting 'deliberately scummy'? What kind of fucked-up groupthink is this? Earlier in the game, I voted Guardian and refused to give a reason for it

this alone is not scummy, and whoever says so is lying to you

. Anything else you find scummy, you should

vote

me for, because I wasn't doing it on purpose.

When you say something like this, do you really need to ask?

Jack is correct, I often act scummy on purpose.

That right there makes me give TCS his 6th Confirm Vote from me.

Confirm Vote: TCS

[AutumnEvenings]

I'm Watching You: Yosarian2

When was the last time you actually talked about the game instead of theory/replacements/lurking/etc.? It's getting somewhat old. I actually had a pretty pro-town read on you and I'll be annoyed if I have to change my mind since there are so damn few of y'all that don't seem scummy.

[Jack]

He did that for a while in hell on earth. But I got a pretty strong scum vibe from him in that game and I don't have anything like that yet.

[Yosarian2]

I'm Watching You: Yosarian2

When was the last time you actually talked about the game instead of theory/replacements/lurking/etc.? It's getting somewhat old. I actually had a pretty pro-town read on you and I'll be annoyed if I have to change my mind since there are so damn few of y'all that don't seem scummy.

I think I've spent a lot of time discussing who I think is scummy and such. As for the last time I talked about the game, it was yesterday, when I argued with MOS and Billy and mentioned that I thought Albert's actions looked scummy.

I always and will always argue about game theory, I think disucssing what the town should do and such is very useful. And as I think I mentioned, Albert's posts yesterday seemed suspicious to me, where first when I said that lurking is bad he said he wanted to see Billy's response, and then when Billy responded he FOS'd me just because he wanted to agree with Billy's comments. Which is another reason discussing game theory is good; sometimes you can get scum tells off of people's responses to the discussion.

[LoudmouthLee]

Since TSQ hasn't posted yet, and BM has explained why he hasn't made any game revelant posts in a week, BM is reinstated.

TSQ will be the next replacement, if needed.

That is all.

[BillyTwilight]

Well, I gave a quick re-read, but its too many pages for me to take notes on every player. Still finding YB to be scummiest. Particularly posts #246 and #261 jump out at me. I also don't like the conversation that he had with Albert after Albert claimed vanilla, and his attack on Jack for posting short posts. Especially the conversation with Jack seems like he's trying to build a case out of nothing. As stated before, he asked for a lurker hunt against N9V; but then he refused to vote for it. Not sure what that means, I think he was trying not to seem opportunistic. At the time the Guardian wagon was beginning to get into full swing, and it was commented that YB might have brought it up to distract away from the Guardian wagon. There has definitely been a lot of weird subtext between Guardian and YB throughout the game.

When I read some of Shteven's posts out of context I didn't see what Glork was talking about, but in context some of his posts seems scummier to me, especially post #262. It's very coachy to Albert, but in a way it seems to be trying to tell any newer players that if you get wagoned and feel the need to claim, it's just better to calmly go down rather than fight. In the context of how he posted it, I find it quite scummy.

I think Glork's typo is a null-tell, but I am intrigued as to why he felt the need to defend himself about it at all.

I don't see Yos' case against Glork, and I don't like the way he is defending BM. I don't see anything in Battle Mage's play that is particularly better play than normal from him. I think BM is town, but Yos has gone on more to try and paint BM as being really good town in this game, which I find kind of odd.

AE looks to be trying to build a case against as many people as she can, and a lot of them on floppy reasons. I don't like her post #755 against Yos. She did the same kind of thing to me, basically accused me (and now Yos) of thread spamming and not posting "game-related content". PSST.... AE, when you post in response to others posts and have a conversation in the game, then it's game related content. Come back with thread spamming if we get in a discussion about horse racing or hockey.

BTW, will you please quantify you case against me? I'd like to know why you want me lynched. If it's because we disagree about a game theory issue then you really need to rethink your strategy for playing mafia.

TCS is looking pretty scummy to me now as well. He was quick to move his vote to me when he might have perceived that an argument with Yos could lead to my lynch. When I called him on it he quickly jumped off without ever quantifying his case against me. In post #702 he infers that his vote for me was because I turned the thread into a "policy discussion", which I don't buy at all, considering he never said anything about not liking a "policy discussion" before and he never looked twice at Yos, who was just as involved in that discussion as I was. Top that off with more of his recent posts and his flip-flopping on whither he is acting scummy on purpose or not puts him just beneath YB on my list.

Vote: YB, FoS: TCS

[AutumnEvenings]

I kind of hate to do this as I'm not sure it's entirely fair, but this:

Since TSQ hasn't posted yet, and BM has explained why he hasn't made any game revelant posts in a week, BM is reinstated. TSQ will be the next replacement, if needed.

makes me pretty sure BattleMage is a townie. I don't see any way he could be mafia, as TSQ would have seen the role PM with all the partners. I guess he could be another role (SK or pro-town power role), but those roles are sort of expected to live (as the pro-town role would claim if close to lynch and the SK...well, he

has

to survive or he loses so it's top priority). I know this is serious meta, but in my opinion, this pretty much clears him.

unFos:Battlemage

.

AE looks to be trying to build a case against as many people as she can, and a lot of them on floppy reasons.

Heh. Pretty much all I have to say to that is, when I build a case on someone? You will know. Right now, I'm just pointing out suscions.

I don't like her post #755 against Yos. She did the same kind of thing to me, basically accused me (and now Yos) of thread spamming and not posting "game-related content".

Not exactly, because I don't actually think Yos is evil. I was basically telling him to knock it off. I don't think he's doing it

instead

of scum-hunting, which is what I accused you of, as he's done an awful lot of the latter. I think he's doing it along with it, which is different.

But I still think it needs to stop because right now this game is 31 pages long, and we're still on Day One and I don't feel like we're anywhere close to a lynch. Unlike Yos, I don't think it's likely at all that we'll get scum-tells off of discussion like this as I view it as "safe topics". People tend to subscribe to certain theories regardless of allignment, and discussing how the game ought to be played or whatever doesn't risk much at all. I think forcing everyone to make cases and take stances is much more informative, as they'd be talking about the actual players and the actual actions in this actual game, which would give us information, especially once we start lynching. Filling up the thread with stuff that could easily go in the mafia discussion forum, in my opinion, will cause us problems later on. No one will want to re-read a gigantic game very often, and that's very, very dangerous in/near endgame.

BTW, will you please quantify you case against me? I'd like to know why you want me lynched. If it's because we disagree about a game theory issue then you really need to rethink your strategy for playing mafia.

Well let's see. As I said when I cast my vote in post 646:
(1)MoS called you pro-town, which I found baffling, as you'd done next to nothing. So I asked him how he reached that conclusion.
(2) Yogurt chose to jump in and answer for MoS.
(3) When I pointed that out, HungryJoe resorted to personal attacks on me.
(4) I glanced at my notes and noticed a previous Yogurt/Billy/Hungry interaction that I'd found scummy (posts 99, 106, 107).
(5) I'd also been suspicious of Yogurt and Hungry for other reasons.
(6) Since you had very few posts and had promised a post but not delivered and hadn't posted in nearly a week, I voted you.

I did not mention...
(7) Voting you seemed best of the three since you'd recieved the least attention thus your reaction would be the most illuminating.

And as added in post 653:
(-8-) You admit that you'd been reading the thread but not posting. As soon as I voted you, you posted.

And as I added in in posts 676 and 684
(9) You didn't post anything except attacking lurker hunting--nothing about suspects, thoughts on players, who might be pro-town, etc. Just that lurker hunting is a scum tactic, which you said lots and lots and lots.

You can try to characterize my vote as a disagreement on a game theory issue, but that just makes me think you're trying to downplay the whole thing, especially as this isn't the first time I've clarified my vote on you (see post 653).

[AutumnEvenings]

Edit--that damn smiley keeps appearing whenever I write 8s. That sucks.

[LoudmouthLee]

I kind of hate to do this as I'm not sure it's entirely fair, but this:

Since TSQ hasn't posted yet, and BM has explained why he hasn't made any game revelant posts in a week, BM is reinstated. TSQ will be the next replacement, if needed.

makes me pretty sure BattleMage is a townie. I don't see any way he could be mafia, as TSQ would have seen the role PM with all the partners. I guess he could be another role (SK or pro-town power role), but those roles are sort of expected to live (as the pro-town role would claim if close to lynch and the SK...well, he

has

to survive or he loses so it's top priority). I know this is serious meta, but in my opinion, this pretty much clears him.

unFos:Battlemage

.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, as that would have ruined the game...

That was, of course, if TSQ read the role. He didn't.

Playing outguess the mod isn't a good idea.

[BillyTwilight]

Well let's see. As I said when I cast my vote in post 646:
(1)MoS called you pro-town, which I found baffling, as you'd done next to nothing. So I asked him how he reached that conclusion.

Not sure exactly how this pertains to me. BTW, MoS wasn't the only person who had a protown read on my posts, Glork did as well and I think some other players.

(2) Yogurt chose to jump in and answer for MoS.

Yogurt has done this many times throughout the game, most recently he answered a question for Guardian in post #747.

(3) When I pointed that out, HungryJoe resorted to personal attacks on me.

Again, not sure how this pertains to me.

(4) I glanced at my notes and noticed a previous Yogurt/Billy/Hungry interaction that I'd found scummy (posts 99, 106, 107).

What interaction was there? YB had become scummy to me by that time in the game. I found his post #99 to be particularly bad, and I asked him about it. At the time YB had jumped to vote BM for very little reason, and when BM voted YB, YB backed off very quickly with a statement that I saw little basis for ("BM looks pro-town to me"). Then he eyed Jack for reasons I couldn't understand. HJ's post has almost nothing to do with that conversation, besides asking for YB to elaborate more on his actions. Otherwise his post is almost entirely about BM. I don't see the scuminess or even a legitamate connection in those posts, other than the fact they were near each other in time and so were discussing issues current in the game.

(5) I'd also been suspicious of Yogurt and Hungry for other reasons.

Why do you want me lynched for that again?

(6) Since you had very few posts and had promised a post but not delivered and hadn't posted in nearly a week, I voted you.

I did not mention...
(7) Voting you seemed best of the three since you'd recieved the least attention thus your reaction would be the most illuminating.

And as added in post 653:
(- 8 -) You admit that you'd been reading the thread but not posting. As soon as I voted you, you posted.

BZZZZZ. Wrong. Never admitted to reading without posting. I said I had sat down and tried to do a read, but every time I did the thread was at least 2-3 pages longer than it had been. In case you missed it, I've been working a ridiculous amount of hours since May. Sitting down and glancing quickly through the thread is not the same as giving it a thorough read and taking time to compose a post. Point is, the first time I sat down to read (even quickly) the entire thread was Friday evening. I just didn't have time to read so much material last week. As far as the posting in response to your vote, think what you will. I had been composing that post since late Friday night, and Saturday was the first day off I had had in weeks.

And as I added in in posts 676 and 684
(9) You didn't post anything except attacking lurker hunting--nothing about suspects, thoughts on players, who might be pro-town, etc. Just that lurker hunting is a scum tactic, which you said lots and lots and lots.

Wrong. Again. In fact a complete lie. My "reentry" post #647 has two statements about lurker hunting. The rest is explicitly thoughts on players and the other things you commented on. In fact, you completely ignored that commentary and went after the fact that I despise lurker-hunting. Again, if you didn't like the argument Yos and I had that's fine, but it was the topic of discussion and was a conversation. If someone makes points that I disagree with or respond to points disagreeing with me, I respond to those posts. It's not solely my fault that conversation headed that way, especially considering you never asked me questions about players or about the thoughts I had in post #647.

You can try to characterize my vote as a disagreement on a game theory issue, but that just makes me think you're trying to downplay the whole thing, especially as this isn't the first time I've clarified my vote on you (see post 653).

You clarified your vote at that time, but you have not elucidated on it since. Since your other reasons for voting me are based on the actions of other players, and tenuous ones at best considering they have both shown this sort of playstyle for the entire game with multiple other players, I find your vote on me to be lackluster. I wanted clarification because you wanted me lynched, which is a stronger statement than merely having a vote on me in Day 1, and I simply don't think you have a case against me.

[Jack]

I don't see billy as scummy.

[Guardian]

I'm not going to automatically assume that this is a scum tell as players in another game did....

But BM is posting in other games, but not here. So while he may have exams and such, why did he choose to lurk in

this

game, and not lurk in a few others? I would like BM to explain this.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I completely disagree with AE. She keeps bringing back the "Billy posted after I voted for him" argument, ignoring that he would have posted anyway. What is she trying to do ?

Unvote, vote: AE

[johhan]

I'm not going to automatically assume that this is a scum tell as players in another game did....

But BM is posting in other games, but not here. So while he may have exams and such, why did he choose to lurk in

this

game, and not lurk in a few others? I would like BM to explain this.

Some games might be more exciting than others, But he should at least make an effort to weigh in every now and then. If he has been posting somewhere else and not here, then he does need to pipe up and talk.

[Yosarian2]

She keeps bringing back the "Billy posted after I voted for him" argument, ignoring that he would have posted anyway.

...how would you know what Billy would have done if he hadn't been attacked?

Granted, we can't know for sure, but it's very, very common that lurkers of either alignment start posting more right after they get called out for lurking. They always claim "Oh, I would have posted anyway", but I usually don't believe them.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Well he has addressed the issue already, and AE shouldn't continue with this WIFOM crap.

[Yosarian2]

Well he has addressed the issue already, and AE shouldn't continue with this WIFOM crap.

Yes, he "adressed the issue". He claimed that he would have posted anyway. I don't see why you would believe him, though, especally considering the timing:

Except for one brief "sorry I've been lurking this game" post, Billy didn't really say anything from May 31'st to June 9th, when he posted at 10:39 pm. On June 9'th, at 9:38 pm, AE attacked Billy for lurking.

So I find it bizzare that the conclusion you draw, when person A lurks for 10 days and then posts exactally 1 hour after someone else attackes him for lurking, is "well he would have posted anyway."

[Albert B. Rampage]

Because there's no way to prove whether he would or would not, and since he said he would in a direct reply, we should just leave the matter alone.

[Guardian]

Albert... There is something called circumstantial evidence, and I feel that your are

blindly ignoring it

for no good reason.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Albert... There is something called circumstantial evidence, and I feel that your are

blindly ignoring it

for no good reason.

(shrug)

[Yosarian2]

Because there's no way to prove whether he would or would not, and since he said he would in a direct reply, we should just leave the matter alone.

So, if there's no way to 100% prove if someone is tellign the truth or not in a mafia game, you just assume they're telling the truth?

Besides, that's not really my point. My point is that this post:

I completely disagree with AE. She keeps bringing back the "Billy posted after I voted for him" argument, ignoring that he would have posted anyway. What is she trying to do ?

Unvote, vote: AE

Looks to me like you KNOW Billy's telling the truth, when there's no logical way you could possibly know that, unless you're scum and therefore know he's town.