Mafia 72: Peril in Panama - Game over!

[Bookitty]

Hey, reading over the thread. I hope to have some analysis this weekend. Thanks for letting me join your game.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I had time to read the thread. Some notes I came up with:

Look, the dumbass outs himself at lynch -2. K. Then he implies that one of two people is his mason partner by saying that person 'bussed' him when I didn't even vote him. Since the other person is Unright, I have to out myself lest Unright the scum claims he is mason, which would be very believable.

I don't understand why a mason would believe his mason buddy would allow someone else to claim mason without denying it. This whole mason claim is just fishy as hell. Gage is a newbie so maybe that's why. What the hell is submarining?

Why is Battle Mage voting for Gage AFTER his partner claimed mason with him?
Ah. Because he hasn't read the thread. Still really scummy though. Why vote if you haven't read it? And then making this comment to Mandalorian: "Lack of reading the game ftl." Hypocrite much?

If Gage weren't claiming Mason I'd be voting him for trailing other people's votes.

I don't understand this Unright trap thing. Unright seems mildly scummy, sure, but I don't care how much a newbie you are, you're not going to let random people claim to be your mason partner, and scum isn't going to claim mason knowing that they'll instantly be contradicted. This seems just dumb from start to finish to me. Either Gage and ABR are masons, or they're both scum. There's not a third option that I see.

I didn't understand the suspicion on Jordan and I still don't. Unright seems pretty disengaged from this game.

Battle Mage votes for Gage AGAIN? Honestly, what is he thinking?

Jordan votes ABR for asking for a claim. I don't understand this either. And if BM is scum, this is something I want to remember from Jordan: "You giving up already bro?" Really odd.

Battle Mage does a PBPA on some people. It's filled with misstatements, CKD points them out, and is rewarded with a completely wishy-washy PBPA on himself. This is a direct quote of Battle Mage lying:

Regarding Nekka-Lucifer whom I replaced:

I feel he makes a fair point, and he gets some good reactions, primarily from Unright and CKD, who both try and push a wagon on him.

And this to CKD:

I didnt say you pushed a lynch on him, i said that you reacted badly to him.

My predecessor, Nekka-Lucifer, claims that he's "on the fence with BM", which makes me think he wasn't very engaged with the game (his weird exit seems to bear that out) because I don't see how you don't find BM's behaviour extremely scummy. At best you're left with WIFOM arguments that I don't feel like having with myself.

Playing stupidly doesn't mean you're not scum, and assuming otherwise lets scum behave scummily without repercussion. Sometimes scum IS stupid. I disagree with this statement by MoS: "BM is probably protown. Only an idiot would try to lynch him at this point. *checks VC* Oh yeah..."

Not liking MoS's defense of Battle Mage. Not sure why CKD would just accept it and unvote either. I don't agree with pete d's analysis post, but it seems honest. Later pete d seems to see some of the things I've seen from BM.

Having real uncertainty as to whether MoS is scum buddying up to BM town, or they're scumbuddies, or MoS is actually thinking BM IS town. I don't understand why they're vouching for each other.

Jordan does a PBPA. Some oddness, he puts a lot of suspicion on Dragon Phoenix, I don't see the reasoning. Agree on Kakeng.

I'm sure ABR is a mason, but I don't like the lurking combined with the vote on Jordan which isn't explained. Really don't like pete d seemingly jumping on reasons to vote people without clear reasons (maybe I'm missing his point).

I really agree with Vollkan's analysis. Logical and clear. I do think Nekka was pretty disengaged from the game, and tunnelling on BM (and I understand why, but it's still not helpful to town) and the people he puts at the top of the list are the people I think I'd put at the top of the list too. I'd switch Unright and MoS.

I do find noncommittal and wishy-washy posts pretty scummy, as it looks like keeping your options open and cozying up to town, so some suspicion of pete d.

Some argument about the length of the game, the lack of posts... Nekka makes his stupid replacement request. (If I hadn't replaced him, I might be voting him for that.)

The masons are the same as confirmed, in my eyes, so as I see it, Battle Mage, Mastermind of Sin and pete d are the scummiest.

At the risk of MoS calling me an idiot (oh noes) I'm going to:

unvote; vote Battle Mage

[Bookitty]

I understand why you'd vote Nekka, pete d. I didn't like him on a reread, and I'm the one who replaced him. I think his exit was horrible, and indicative of his lazy, unhelpful play.

My notes were referring to the fact that I didn't get a good sense of why you were jumping on and off Nekka, and then voting Battle Mage given your previous statements. I agree that Battle Mage is scummy, obviously, I just didn't know why YOU were voting him.

Hope this is more clear.

[Bookitty]

I wanna lynch him. I don't believe him.

But I'm scared I might be wrong.

unvote

[Bookitty]

I'm really not buying the claim. Let's string him up.

This seems a little odd, coming from you, Gage.

I don't understand why both the claimed masons are pushing to lynch the claimed doc.

[Bookitty]

My other two main suspects were pete d and Mastermind of Sin. But both were far behind Battle Mage in my reckoning, and I'm not certain of either of them enough to vote them at this point.

I think I mentioned this before, but if anyone can explain the Unright trap thing to me, I'd be really grateful. I just don't see any way that scum would think that they could fake claim being a real mason's partner and not be instantly outed for it. And surely if scum were going to fake claim being masons together, they wouldn't have done so with comments like "My mason mate is actually bussing now" which sort of undermines their credibility. I believe the mason claims. I think Gage is acting oddly in regards to BM's claim, specifically because Gage's claim was so weird and unbelievable and filled with WIFOMY accusations of bussing on the part of his buddy.

Anyway, if anyone remembers what the Unright trap was, I'd appreciate a link or an explanation. I don't see the case on him at the moment, however.

[Bookitty]

I dont understand why people (Gage, pete d, Albert B. Rampage) re still voting for our claim doc..any reason why those voting for him want to do the mafia work for them?

Why are you assuming that mafia will automatically take him out? When I was scum and there was a suspicious claimed doc, we left them alive for day 2 to screw with everyone (but they got vigged anyhow).

but I would be more inclined to lynch him tomorrow to see if mafia bags him tonight.

With statements like this, why would mafia get rid of BM if he was a doc?

I'm really tempted to vote for pete d based on this. It looks to me like an excuse in advance for Battle Mage not being nightkilled.

The reason for Mafia to get rid of doc-Battle Mage is the same as for any other doctor... because they don't want their nightkill interfered with. That doesn't change just because Battle Mage is likely to be lynched tomorrow. Additionally, if Battle Mage is scum, you've just provided an excuse for him when he's not nightkilled.

Why would you suggest the scum-strategy you employed in a previous game if you're town, pete d?

[Bookitty]

I don't like that post by bookitty, it smells funny.

How so?

[Bookitty]

I'm framing whom, again?

Battle Mage?

Why would I be framing scum?

Your logic makes no sense to me at all.

[Bookitty]

Okay. On a reread it's clearer what you're saying, I guess, though I still don't understand your logic. You think that Battle Mage is scum (I agree with this, but I don't want to lynch a claimed doc and be wrong), and so you think we should just lynch him now.

And I did not read it that pete d was agreeing with this, but rather making an excuse (since it looks unlikely that Battle Mage will be lynched today) for why Battle Mage would be left alive tomorrow, as if he knew that would be the case.

But I can see on a reread how you would think that pete d was saying we should just lynch Battle Mage now.

Still, your weird "framer" thing is just beyond me. Maybe you can explain better who the town framer is, in your scenario. And why town would frame someone, in the first place.

[Bookitty]

I didn't find it especially clear.

Is ABR right? Is suggesting scum strategies generally considered a pro-town tell, and not to be questioned? I'd like some other people to weigh in on this point.

[Bookitty]

Bookitty defies common sense by trying to distort a very clear thought process* and disparages pete D who I don't think anyone has even attacked yet.

This clearly isn't true, and betrays that you haven't even really read the thread. Why is this?

At least two people have attacked pete d. I myself said he was one of my three main suspects quite a while back. I said why. So this is just clearly untrue.

3) Scum try to look suspicious of someone that is in no danger of being lynched so they are uninvolved with the lynch of a townie.

Why are you so certain pete d is a townie? And before that, my vote was on Battle Mage, taken off because of his claim. Are you now arguing that Battle Mage was obviously a townie?

Then she "paces" my reality, a subtle manipulation technique studied in NLP:

What is NLP? I said that I thought I understood your logic. But since you're already arguing that pete d is a townie unsuspected by anyone previously (which is untrue), then I'd ask, why would I move my vote from someone you were arguing was scum in order to START a lynch wagon on someone you claim is a townie?

IOW she feigns agreeing with me to make me think we are on the same page even though she logically claims to be on opposite sides from me. AKA appeasing me and sweeping it under the rug, as you might say.

I have no clue what you're getting at here, either. I thought I might understand your point, but since I wasn't assuming pete d was a townie, I didn't have your automatic "oh, he's obviously town" response. I had ALREADY stated my suspicions of him, which were MUCH less than my suspicions of Battle Mage at the time, but since Battle Mage claimed I felt I had to go back to square one and reread, and I'm in the process of doing that. Something that you might want to do, before you misrepresent the situation any further, as in your statement that no one had attacked pete d all game.

The reason I didn't vote for pete d was that I didn't have time to do a thorough reread. I wanted HIM to answer for his post, something he STILL has not done, and is unlikely to do since you're answering for him.

[Bookitty]

ABR:

You've thought every case you've had, in this game at least, to be the "be-all end-all". You were convinced enough that Battle Mage was scum to try to wagon him despite his claim, and now you're saying "I am not saying BM is 100% townie"... what happened to "lynch him anyway"?

You've been wrong about your facts already in attacking me. Maybe your certainty isn't all it's cracked up to be, when it can change so radically without any explanation.

[Bookitty]

I wanted Battle Mage lynched during the posts where I previously expressed my suspicions of pete d. To my knowledge, I have but one vote, and I put it where I felt most certain of hitting scum. I VOTED for Battle Mage, and I said exactly why. I pushed the wagon I was sure of. You go from "lynch Battle Mage anyway" to "not saying BM is 100% townie" without any explanation of this change at all.

Right now, I am STILL in the process of a detailed reread, and I am not someone who just puts a vote on someone randomly and decides to lynch them based on one post. Your playstyle may be oriented toward lynching someone regardless. Mine is NOT. I look at the evidence, I present it, and I vote where I feel some degree of confidence, as opposed to just assuming things and stating them as fact, the way that you have done, and then placing a vote based on your incorrect assumptions.

I'm not going to place a vote just because you call names and use impressive sounding acronyms. I'm going to do it when I feel I have a decent case against someone, and if I see something I disagree with, I'm going to ask for an explanation for it. From pete d, from you, from anyone. And AFTER they've had the chance to respond, I might vote for them, but I'm not going to do it as my first response, and then make up a lot of reasons that in retrospect, you had this to say about: "Looking at my post, it doesn't seem much."

[Bookitty]

Yeah I sounded harsher than I meant to on Bookitty (I'm sorry Bookitty).

No offense taken.

[Bookitty]

Not that I think it makes much difference at this point, but I'm going to point out that pete d never did answer my question, though he's posted since. I suspect he didn't feel the need to, since ABR answered so aggressively on his behalf.

Either I'm right about Pete and suggesting scum strategies is pro-town, or I'm wrong about Pete and he is scum.

I'd still like an explanation for why that's a FALSE dichotomy. It's more of a straw man, since suggesting scum strategies isn't pro-town in my view regardless, as I think I pointed out.

I also will point out that ABR himself stated his willingness to wagon pete d earlier, so his comments about pete d being under no meaningful suspicion are false even from his own perspective. I don't know why a pro-town mason would misrepresent the situation so badly (ABR forgot, maybe?) but I am hopeful if I'm lynched then perhaps town will take a closer and more skeptical look at ABR's postings and his interactions with his claimed mason partner. Also, look at who easily slipped onto this wagon without much comment or previous justification.

Not that I think it will do any good, but my suspicions are about equally split between Unright (once the tell was pointed out, I could see it pretty easily) and pete d, but due to his lack of explanation and trailing of ABR's vote, I'm going to

unvote; vote pete d