US Election 08 Mafia(Someone has won, has America lost?)

[magnus_orion]

You and charter living is not acceptable.

Yay fritzler!!! Are you a day vig?

unvote

(I didn't realise I was doing so.

Sup? I wish. You want to vote charter?

*Twitch*

[magnus_orion]

Sorry I thought I pressed preview on that post
@Ortolan: did you see my question?
@fitzler: do you even have a case that does not amount to "I want these people dead"?

[Vi]

Also, do we know who Stephen Colbert is, or does only one person still?

I think I know, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Yup, looking at a mod's old set up's is in no way relevant.

Hey, I said "I don't see how", not "it isn't"

Why are you assuming “not reading the thread” instead of “reading the thread and deliberate acting antitown”?

It's possible that zwet was deliberately acting up, but I don't see that as most likely. Judgment call.

So what of Yaw’s defense that he missed posts? Of the things you’re attacking him on, you’re not mentioning that.

It's a valid concern given he did a summary and post count

before

responding to zwetschenwasser. However, that point wasn't relevant to the line of thought I was pursuing against Yaw, so I didn't mention it.

<snip>
I think zwetschenwasser has been very scummy, but at the same time suspect this is at least partly based on being accustomed to how Mafia is played on another site. I call lynchalicious.
<snip>

What does this mean?

Um... what

could

it mean? It seems self-explanatory.

Rest assured the feeling of suspicion is mutual, but I'll have to do some reading before deciding if it's worth pursuing - notably looking at the charter vs. EmpTyger fight.

-----

I just got home from ski club.

Ski club? o.o

-----

Yup, its not relevant... at least, I can't see how it can be relevant, except to scum...

How is it relevant to scum? Plenty of people have asked you this question, and you haven't answered it.

-----

@Nikelaos: Normally when people say you're just hanging on, the expected reaction is for you to talk about someone so as to convince people you're not just hanging out.
Or at least that's what I'd do. Consider it; participation is cool.

-----

@mod: Prod zwetschenwasser, and Natirasha... and a handful of others, etc.

[Stephen Colbert]

@mod: Prod zwetschenwasser, and Natirasha... and a handful of others, etc.

I prodded them two days ago, I will not prod them again right now.
However, I WILL replace any of them who do not

POST

within 24 hours of this post.

[Natirasha]

To the mods: Replace me. RL has gotten very hectic and Im replacing out of all my current games. Sorry.

[magnus_orion]

@ Vi:

@kairyuu: Well, because setup speculation allows mafia to be able to predict probable safe claims, as well as to let them know what roles to expect the town to have, so they can be on the lookout for tells.

[Kairyuu]

@Fritzler:

You and charter living is not acceptable.

Oh? Are we playing "Let's be Totally Useless" now? Here I thought we were playing Mafia. Alright then. Post a reason for your vote or you get mine. I do not deal well with people who deliberately act unhelpful.

@all: Does Fritzler have a Nat-esque meta? I generally assume that someone is going to play properly unless I know in advance that they won't, so I would like to know if we just picked up another dead weight.

@Emptyger:

Um, I wasn’t the one making automatic assumptions about motivations. Vi was. What was the “clear indication” that zwet was innocently not reading the thread, rather than trying to ignoring his attackers?

I'm not talking about zwet. I'm talking about Badguy. That question was from before my V/LA last week. I noticed it on a quick reread.

The "clear indication" was that he claimed after several people had opposed the nameclaim, and only about 2 had supported it. Assuming mental competency, it points to him not reading, or not reading thoroughly.

And what about not voting without reasoning?

Huh? Who are you referring to? I'm reasonably certain that I'm voting Max right now, and I remember posting some reasoning a page or two ago.

To answer your question, I don't particularly care for holding your vote on D1, but I've seen many players who like to play conservatively and sit on their votes for a long period of time. Again, I don't agree with it, and I try not to do it, but I don't find ti to be a scumtell.

@magnus in 400: My sentiments exactly.

@Vi:

Ski club? o.o

Yup. Why? Do you ski or something?

[zwetschenwasser]

Yay! Just got back from my three day rehearsal/conference/performance with the Florida All-State Symphony Orchestra in Tampa. Sorry about not doing a V/La post. In response to Vi's 359 question, I think that a good player is in most cases better than a power role. Just because someone can daykill Psychiatrists with a Raygun while generating pro-town vigs by using a 200% doctor protect doesn't help him/her much from getting killed if he/she doesn't contribute actively towards getting bad guys tarred and feathered. Also, where did Fritzler's logic for Charter come from? It seems suspicious that Max immediately buddied up to Fritzler.

[magnus_orion]

Why would daykilling psychiatrists be a good thing?
Did I miss something?

[Yosarian2]

@all: Does Fritzler have a Nat-esque meta? I generally assume that someone is going to play properly unless I know in advance that they won't, so I would like to know if we just picked up another dead weight.

No, Fritzler has a Fritzler-esque meta.

[Yosarian2]

I was tempted to leave it at that, but I suppose I should clarify.

Expect Fritzler, irrespective of alignment, to be very agressive and direct, often without giving reasons. His attack on charter is par for the course.

Which does not mean he's "Dead weight." He's an incredibly good player. Because if he's town, when he attacks someone like that, he's right a lot. And he's very good at getting people lynched.

[Vi]

Why would daykilling psychiatrists be a good thing?
Did I miss something?

Exactly where are you going with this line of questioning?
Also, I'm okay with 405.

Yup. Why? Do you ski or something?

The first and last time I skied, I almost made it into the book of bunny slope suicides.
Truth be told, I'm not sure why I expressed interest >.>

Have you heard about experienced players who fiercely push people seemingly-arbitrarily to see how they react?

[Kairyuu]

@Yos2:

No, Fritzler has a Fritzler-esque meta

-laughs-

Well, I suppose that would be the case if you think

really

hard about it.

Expect Fritzler, irrespective of alignment, to be very agressive and direct

Well I like this very much, since whenever possible I do the exact same thing (see sig).

often without giving reasons. His attack on charter is par for the course.

Now this I have a problem with. How the hell does someone play effectively, and gain information from their targets' responses, if they don't provide their reasons for the attacks. This also causes the problem that people cannot read them properly, because their logic is not on the table.

He's an incredibly good player.

But . . . how . . . I don't . . . lack of logic and argumentative support is

good

now?

Because if he's town, when he attacks someone like that, he's right a lot

Umm. Problem here. -raises hand- Sir, I have an objection.

Why would you be willing to rely on him being town? Isn't that something that you

shouldn't

be assuming?

And he's very good at getting people lynched.

I can't see how someone is all that great at getting people lynched when he does not provide reasons for why he wants the lynches. Sounds like people just put blind faith in him and help him get the lynches he wants in the hopes that he is town/right.

@Vi:

Have you heard about experienced players who fiercely push people seemingly-arbitrarily to see how they react?

Nope. I know of newer players that do though. -points to self-

If you are referring to Fritzler, then I honestly do not care how good he is at what he is doing. The fact remains that it is unhelpful and anti-town, and I wish he wouldn't withhold his reasoning just for the reactions, when they can be garnered just as effectively with the reasoning provided (speaking from my ~7 games experience). Plus, providing reasoning doesn't irritate people nearly as much.

[magnus_orion]

Exactly where are you going with this line of questioning?

Nowhere.
Some of my questions are just personal intellectual curiosity.
I mean I thought psychiatrists were supposed to cure serial killers, so day killing them doesn't seem helpful, but maybe I missed something.

[Yosarian2]

often without giving reasons. His attack on charter is par for the course.

Now this I have a problem with. How the hell does someone play effectively, and gain information from their targets' responses, if they don't provide their reasons for the attacks.

Watch.

This also causes the problem that people cannot read them properly, because their logic is not on the table.

That is true. Fritzler is sometimes quite hard to read.

But . . . how . . . I don't . . . lack of logic and argumentative support is

good

now?

(shrug) If everyone does it, no. If there's one Fritzler-type player (or Baby Jesus, or Internet Stranger, although those guys are before your time) in a game, I think it can actually make it much easier for the town to find scum.

Umm. Problem here. -raises hand- Sir, I have an objection.

Why would you be willing to rely on him being town? Isn't that something that you

shouldn't

be assuming?

Oh, I'm not assuming he's town. I'm telling you that when he is town, he's quite effective. When he's scum, he's quite dangerous. Do not write him off as a "Waste of space", trust me on this.

I can't see how someone is all that great at getting people lynched when he does not provide reasons for why he wants the lynches.

(shrug)

If you are referring to Fritzler, then I honestly do not care how good he is at what he is doing. The fact remains that it is unhelpful and anti-town

Nothing he's done so far is unhelpful, or anti-town, or a scumtell coming from him.

[Yosarian2]

Exactly where are you going with this line of questioning?

Nowhere.
Some of my questions are just personal intellectual curiosity.
I mean I thought psychiatrists were supposed to cure serial killers, so day killing them doesn't seem helpful, but maybe I missed something.

Um

Did someone claim psychiatrist? Did I miss something?

[zwetschenwasser]

Read 359 and you'll see my post was a joke-exaggeration

[magnus_orion]

Exactly where are you going with this line of questioning?

Nowhere.
Some of my questions are just personal intellectual curiosity.
I mean I thought psychiatrists were supposed to cure serial killers, so day killing them doesn't seem helpful, but maybe I missed something.

Um

Did someone claim psychiatrist? Did I miss something?

I was speaking of zwet's post.


So, what prevents fitzler from voting a player and letting the case make itself through another player?
Like just saying, this person is suspicious.
And then someone else making a case
and then the first person saying, yeah thats why.

[vollkan]

vollkan:
How do you expect a bandwagon to form on the antitown lurker? If you only make arguments against active posters, even if you decide otherwise when it comes time for lynch, what do you expect the rest of the town to do? (Because skimming quickly Death Note Mini633, yes, you did correctly vote the SK in the final lynch- but the rest of the town voted otherwise, so it was a loss.) “I’ll consider it later when it’s possibly too late” isn’t a winning strategy.

As with any bandwagon, I rest on the hope that my arguments will be strong enough to persuade people. I don't think there is a more optimal method.

And what exactly are you trying to do in debating claiming strategy with Badguy?

He said that it would be more likely scum would claim a big name. I don't agree and, since I don't think think it helps town to have people approaching claims from a position which, in my opinion, is erroneous, I argued against his view.

You effectively stated a belief in multiple scum groups, which is scummy.

Maybe I have missed it, but how is it scummy? He said there are probably two scheming election parties. I don't agree that there are reasonable grounds for such a belief, but I don't think it's scummy.

I've already gone over how I think his presuming there's multiple scum groups comes from insider scum knowledge.

Same as above.

[Fritzler]

Also, do we know who Stephen Colbert is, or does only one person still?

I think I know, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Yup, looking at a mod's old set up's is in no way relevant.

Hey, I said "I don't see how", not "it isn't"

That doesn't make my comment any less relevant. At all.

@all: Does Fritzler have a Nat-esque meta? I generally assume that someone is going to play properly unless I know in advance that they won't, so I would like to know if we just picked up another dead weight.

Wow. Wow. Just wow. That is like asking if Seven Samurai is Magnificent Seven like. Just look at our reg dates.

Also how in the world are you going to argue that I am more unhelpful than any lurkers we have right now?

[Fritzler]

This video shows how I feel about the charter train.

[Fritzler]

Vote: Natirasha

He's a serial killer.

Is this nat?

We are nothing alike.

Nothing.

[Kairyuu]

@Fritzler:

Also how in the world are you going to argue that I am more unhelpful than any lurkers we have right now?

This is a good point. The lurkers are getting rather excessive. Hell, I don't even have my own computer to use and I'm around often enough. Also, sorry about the Nat-esque thing. I have played with Nat, and not you, so I automatically compared the unknown to the known.

Meh. I'm happy with my vote on Max right now. I still want to know your reasons for voting charter (Yos2 and something I read from Glork have caused me to reevaluate my stance on votes like yours) so that I can try to make my own judgment on

you

though. I assume that as town you would have no problem revealing your reasoning now so that your own motives can be read into.

[Fritzler]

something I read from Glork have caused me to reevaluate my stance on votes like yours

I'm genuinely curious, what did you read from glork?

[Kairyuu]

I was randomly skimming the Mafia Discussion forum, and I ran across this topic (The 5 things I hate most when playing mafia are . . .):

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

I figured I'd kill some time reading it while waiting for new posts, and I found dahil quoting Glork in post 16 regarding voting without reasoning. Needless to say, it was quite convincing. Glork showed up and confirmed that he had actually said it slightly later.