Mafia 913: Wickedestjr's Mafia - Game Over

[The Quintastic One]

What was the point of saying that we could have a killing role? lol.

And yes, I am super new. This is also my first non-Road To Rome experience. And to be honest neither of the IC's or SE's in either of my first two games were particularly helpful in teaching us proper scum hunting techniques. But I'm trying the best I can with as limited knowledge that I have.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: I'm not going to declare V/LA, but I messed up the computer in my room and now it won't connect to the Internet. I'll be using the other two computers in the house in the meantime.

[The Quintastic One]

Speaking of voting if we could get a

vote count

that would be nice.

[Jack]

@Jack, You should vote Quin, Iso him and read his posts revolving around your gambit.

They are interesting, but I'm not keen on voting since I've always had trouble distinguishing new player mafia from new player "says weird things" town.

[The Quintastic One]

What am I saying that's weird? I think my statements and proofread them through my head to make sure they make sense to me before I post them. Sometimes even reading my posts two or three times to make sure what I'm saying makes sense. So I don't understand how you guys think what I'm saying is weird. Please explain.

[Zhero]

My guess for the role setup:

1 godfather
2 goon

1 cop
1 doctor
1 roleblocker

That's an oddly specific guess. Any reasoning?

3) I didn't considerer it rolefishing because I wasn't directly trying to ask anybody to reveal themselves as the doctor I was mentioning. I can go further into my explanation of what I thinks gonna happen, but you already said you don't like all the role talk and I don't want to upset anyone else today.

Since we know nothing about the setup until people claim or flip, speculating about it makes it look like you're angling for claims. Hence the fishing accusations.

Well it isn't as much him hurting the town as him not helping the town

Not helping the town is a pretty weak tell when we've still got someone who hasn't posted at all, and multiple people who've only posted once.

All that said,

Vote: Jack

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: I was able to solve the Internet problem.

I love quick fixes

[The Quintastic One]

I'm so going to be kicking myself if the town lynches the cop on day 1 again. lol. But everyone has their reasons for voting why they are voting. I guess I just don't understand the logic behind it.

Player #1: "Hey guys, I'm the town cop!"
Rest Of The Town: "Son of a bitch, let's lynch him!"

[StrangerCoug]

Why are we still going on about Jack being a possible cop? You know that you're painting an NK target on him, right?

[Zang]

Tqo-I said it because the mafia might kill Jack who the doctor protects but if we have another killing role such as vigilante then they won't want to kill the cop so they would target someone else. I am saying this because you said Jack would be scummy if he did not die and someonelse was killed.

[Jack]

That's an oddly specific guess. Any reasoning?

You haven't read the thread carefully...

[The Quintastic One]

Tqo-I said it because the mafia might kill Jack who the doctor protects but if we have another killing role such as vigilante then they won't want to kill the cop so they would target someone else. I am saying this because you said Jack would be scummy if he did not die and someonelse was killed.

Gotcha. I like talking about variables like that. That would certainly throw me for a loop though. lol.

Fine, Coug. Let's assume that Jack isn't the cop. Tell me then, why would he openly hint at that kind of ability? What are the benefits of doing such a risky move?

[StrangerCoug]

Fine, Coug. Let's assume that Jack isn't the cop. Tell me then, why would he openly hint at that kind of ability? What are the benefits of doing such a risky move?

I didn't want to assume anything about Jack, but I'll bite on this one—it reads to me as if he's trying to direct the cop if that's the case. Not scummy per se, but that he's doing it openly is indeed weird. I haven't decided either way on him, but neither have I forgotten about it.

[Zhero]

You haven't read the thread carefully...

Not sure what you mean, so I guess not.

[SIR CYANIDE]

Making huge post soon addressing all the confusion about me.

[SIR CYANIDE]

TQO/SIR CYANIDE confusion

Post 46, the post that started it all

Call it rolefishing all you want. I'm fully willing for the town cop to investigate me.

A proven innocent townie is a thousand times more useful than a bunch of townies that you can't trust to be telling the truth.

The bold part I interpreted as missing the point. Yes, a proven innocent townie is more useful than a bunch of townies that you can’t trust to be telling the truth, but here he is comparing nobody being investigated to investigating a townie. Somebody will be investigated regardless in the example given. I corrected him and said that it is better to investigate scum.

If you investigate town, you can be sure that whatever this player says is said with the best intentions. This helps us find scum.
If you investigate scum, you found scum.
--
It is obvious for everyone that it is better to investigate scum. It appeared to me that TQO did not understand this, so I threw out some banter lines (they are not blatant ad hominems, there is a comical undertone)

Proof:

Post 48, me trying to explain TQO the above

The least a cop can get as a result is 'townie', the best he can get is 'scum'. You would not want him to investigate you if you were town.

the only worse scenarios that could occur would be if the cop investigated a Miller or a Godfather, so the only reason you would want to be investigated by a cop would be if you were the Godfather, I think (miller would be detrimental to your faction).

Here, I am explaining that nobody would ever want to investigated by a cop unless they were the Godfather.
If you are scum, you don’t want to be investigated because it hurts the alignment you’re on.
If you are town, you don’t want to be investigated because you would want scum to be investigated.

Post 49, TQO

I'm still not following any of your guys' logic.

I identified this as stupid. The logic should be obvious.

And yet the ONLY true rebuttal to this case is that I could be the Godfather?

I identified this as stupid. Nobody implied this, it seemed inventive to me.

Sounds like you guys are more trying to undermine the effectiveness of a cop by saying that even if he gets an innocent reading it's just the Godfather so we shouldn't listen to the cop.

I identified this as stupid. Nobody implied this.

That's scum talk, and you're looking all the more scummy the more you keep trying to insist that it's better that innocent townies remain suspicious while scum continue to twist everyone's arguments around.

I identified this as stupid. I was trying to insist that it is better for the cop to investigate scum which he again failed to understand.

Post 52, me trying to explain TQO part 2

14 players (makes calculations easier), 2 Mafia, 1 Cop, rest vanilla town. You are one of those vanilla town. You are given the opportunity to have the cop 100% not investigate you.

If you accept this opportunity: 14 - cop himself(1) - you(1) = 12 people left to investigate, 2 out of 10 can flip scum (assuming no godfather/miller/etc.), which is 20%.

If you don't accept this opportunity: 14 - cop himself(1) = 13 people left to investigate. 2 out of 11 can flip scum (assuming blahblah), which is about 18%.

Here, I give solid evidence that it is better to not volunteer for an investigation, with some banter. From there, insulting occurs and goes on.

I also have some issues with Jack:

Jack

Post 54, posting absolute, 100% nonsense-reasons for voting against me. They cannot be considered good reasons from any imaginable point of view. Also, he did not defend me/clear up the confusion TQO was having. I find this weird.

Post 55, Jack asking why TQO’s vote was not on me

Again, I find this weird. Instead of defending me and explaining why I take so much issues with TQO, he encourages TQO to put his vote on me. This lead me to believe that he didn’t get the logic either, which is why I also called him newb/stupid. However, after reading his ISO I came across this:

Spot on reasoning from Jack, basically what I was trying to explain TQO

Yet he doesn’t jump in on the issue, but prefers to somewhat buddy up to TQO and actually encourage him to put his vote on me, while I’m just trying to point out flawed game theory beliefs from TQO – something he should encourage if he was town.

Vote: Jack

[Jack]

[quote=Sir Cyanide]Yet he doesn’t jump in on the issue, but prefers to somewhat buddy up to TQO and actually encourage him to put his vote on me,[/quote]

I wanted to start a little pressure wagon.

[quote=Sir Cyanide]They cannot be considered good reasons from any imaginable point of view. Also, he did not defend me/clear up the confusion TQO was having. I find this weird.

...
However, after reading his ISO I came across this:

Spot on reasoning from Jack, basically what I was trying to explain TQO

Yet he doesn’t jump in on the issue, but prefers to somewhat buddy up to TQO and actually encourage him to put his vote on me, while I’m just trying to point out flawed game theory beliefs from TQO – something he should encourage if he was town. [/quote]

You find it weird that I didn't clear up the confusion TQO was having, when I had already made a post explaining it?

And my accusation of you "rehashing old posts" doesn't make sense? I noted that during the somewhat strange and unsure "gambit" stage you made joke posts, and then after it was less weird you came in all townie like offering an explanation even though it had already been given.

A question for you: why, when you saw that the second half of your post contradicted an earlier part, did you not remove the earlier part? It makes it seem like you are just putting together an argument instead of being sincere.

[Jack]

*reposted to make it easier to read, I keep forgetting the name needs quotes for some god forsaken reason*

Yet he doesn’t jump in on the issue, but prefers to somewhat buddy up to TQO and actually encourage him to put his vote on me,

I wanted to start a little pressure wagon.

They cannot be considered good reasons from any imaginable point of view. Also, he did not defend me/clear up the confusion TQO was having. I find this weird.

...
However, after reading his ISO I came across this:

Spot on reasoning from Jack, basically what I was trying to explain TQO

Yet he doesn’t jump in on the issue, but prefers to somewhat buddy up to TQO and actually encourage him to put his vote on me, while I’m just trying to point out flawed game theory beliefs from TQO – something he should encourage if he was town.

You find it weird that I didn't clear up the confusion TQO was having, when I had already made a post explaining it?

And my accusation of you "rehashing old posts" doesn't make sense? I noted that during the somewhat strange and unsure "gambit" stage you made joke posts, and then after it was less weird you came in all townie like offering an explanation even though it had already been given.

A question for you: why, when you saw that the second half of your post contradicted an earlier part, did you not remove the earlier part? It makes it seem like you are just putting together an argument instead of being sincere.

[ConfidAnon]

I haven't voted anyone for any of those things, and never claimed that A,B, or C was suspicious (in fact I implied that A and C were not necessarily suspicious). So how is it a trap?

You could say my vote for SIR ASPERGERS was related to C, but the vote was on account of the following switch up.

Meh, my original interpretation of it was a trap (which probably has to do with my gut read on you.) Your posts have rubbed me the wrong way, so my vote stays.

You're both insulting each other. Just drop the personal attacks.

QFT

3) I didn't considerer it rolefishing because I wasn't directly trying to ask anybody to reveal themselves as the doctor I was mentioning. I can go further into my explanation of what I thinks gonna happen, but you already said you don't like all the role talk and I don't want to upset anyone else today.

When you bring up a power role, if someone has that power role, they will sometimes react in a way which makes it obvious that they have such power role. That is why it is dangerous to bring up roles early on in the game.

I'm not voting because I have 3 suspects, I want to narrow it down farther before I vote, only 2 of my 3 suspects can be scum if that. I want to have more solid information before I vote.

The cautiousness here bugs me.

FoS: Zang

Well since I'm one of your FoS's I'll bite. Do you have any questions for me or anything else you'd like to know? Doesn't have to be about anything in particular. Could just be generic questions about my gaming philosophy, what I ate for lunch today. I don't care. lol. Just figure I'll try to help you along with the hopes of easing your suspicions of me.

This bothers me too. Your almost too helpful. You seem overly concerned with people who suspect you.

Unvote: Jack
Vote: The Quintastic One

In other news, everybody needs to calm down. I know this is a game of Mafia, but I did not come in here with the expectation of this thread to be a war zone.

QFT

Either way, if Jack is the one to get lynched today I'm not convinced that I should participate. Because A) I find Cy to be more of a detriment to the town, scum or not, than Jack. And B) If Jack is lynched and he IS the town cop, that's 3 games in a row I've been in where the town cop was lynched on day 1. lol. I don't think I could live down that shame.

I do not like this either.

I see it this way. ASSUMING Jack is the cop, he's either gonna be dead by night phase because Scum won't risk letting the cop have a free turn to investigate, or a doctors gonna protect him and we don't have to worry about a night kill for night 1. I don't see the scum throwing a swerve and targeting anybody else but Jack and risk having him really be the cop and ousting them.

So if Jack survives the night, and somebody else takes the kill, I will heavily suspect Jack as being scum.

And to Button-I am assuming Jack is the cop. That said, I am willingly volunteering myself to be investigated by a player who I believe to be the cop. You tell me how that in any earthly way equates a scumtell? I mean, seriously? That's bogus. Please help me understand how that is not bogus.

This is so bad on so many levels. How on earth is announcing who you think the Cop is publicly, where anyone, including scum, can read it is protown? You are way too focused on finding the Cop instead of finding scum.

Analyzing night kills before we actually have a night kill is also fail. To be honest, this play is more detrimental to the town than Cyanide's insulting remarks.

[Zang]

Confidanon-why is Cacautiosness a bad thing? And early in your post (118) you say that your vote on Jack stays but later in that same post you unvote Jack and vote TQO. Can you please explain this and what is your opinion on cyanide?

[StrangerCoug]

Confidanon-why is Cacautiosness a bad thing? And early in your post (118) you say that your vote on Jack stays but later in that same post you unvote Jack and vote TQO.

Good points. I want to see how he responds.

[SIR CYANIDE]

I wanted to start a little pressure wagon.

Fair enough.

You find it weird that I didn't clear up the confusion TQO was having, when I had already made a post explaining it?

Yes, I find that very very fucking weird. When you explain something, your goal is to make the other person understand it. If the other person does not understand it, you will have to make him understand one way or another. Explaining something and then ignoring everyone who doesn't get it is anti-town, it creates confusion.

And my accusation of you "rehashing old posts" doesn't make sense?

It sure doesn't. Someone voices his stance on it ("I don't get it") 2 posts before my post addressing it which does not make it something 'old', whatever the fuck you might mean with that.

Do you think going over the game at day 2 to find out who is Mafia is 'old' too, because it started at day 1? No, things that are still going on are not 'old' in this context. If TQO doesn't get something and makes posts about it, it is not 'old' and me addressing it is not 'rehashing an old issue'.

I noted that during the somewhat strange and unsure "gambit" stage you made joke posts, and then after it was less weird you came in all townie like offering an explanation even though it had already been given.

That was a fucking gambit? Seemed more like joke-posting that was misinterpreted by 90% of all people here. The explanation I gave was an attempt to make TQO understand the issue, who still did not. I'm not sure what I dislike more, TQO crying about ethics/etiquette or your play style, but I do know what's more scummy.

[Jack]

You find it weird that I didn't clear up the confusion TQO was having, when I had already made a post explaining it?

Yes, I find that very very fucking weird. When you explain something, your goal is to make the other person understand it. If the other person does not understand it, you will have to make him understand one way or another. Explaining something and then ignoring everyone who doesn't get it is anti-town, it creates confusion.

I'm fine with him having a mistaken impression. I'm more concerned with someone saying something suspicious than saying something incorrect. You think it is suspicious that I wouldn't repeat what I'd said earlier, when you were already discussing it with TQO? You implied that I made no effort to correct his assumption.

And my accusation of you "rehashing old posts" doesn't make sense?

It sure doesn't. Someone voices his stance on it ("I don't get it") 2 posts before my post addressing it which does not make it something 'old', whatever the fuck you might mean with that.

Do you think going over the game at day 2 to find out who is Mafia is 'old' too, because it started at day 1? No, things that are still going on are not 'old' in this context. If TQO doesn't get something and makes posts about it, it is not 'old' and me addressing it is not 'rehashing an old issue'.

I noted that during the somewhat strange and unsure "gambit" stage you made joke posts, and then after it was less weird you came in all townie like offering an explanation even though it had already been given.

That was a fucking gambit? Seemed more like joke-posting that was misinterpreted by 90% of all people here. The explanation I gave was an attempt to make TQO understand the issue, who still did not. I'm not sure what I dislike more, TQO crying about ethics/etiquette or your play style, but I do know what's more scummy.

But this is my point exactly. You are saying that rehashing and explaining the issue is pro town, but I don't have an issue with the rehashing. I was noting the

contrast

between rehashing and joke posting. It's a fairly basic assumption that mafia avoid posting in uncertain situations, instead posting when they feel secure. You can say that it's a weak argument if you want, I would probably post and point to the page number. It certainly isn't complete nonsense however, why would try and insist that it was?

[The Quintastic One]

Well I'd like to thank Sir Cyanide for posting that big point by point argument in full. When I see all of that together, it becomes clearer to me.

All I wanted was that acknowledgement that me being investigated would still be a good thing. Even if finding scum would be better.

It still makes me laugh how there are guys like Buttonman and ConfidAnon who despite all previous evidence and confidence on my part that I am indeed town, that I am somehow still scummy. It's whatever, it's natural that you're suspicious. But you couldn't be more wrong if I slapped a neon sign to your forehead that blinked every five seconds that you would be wrong.

Alot of stuff has been said that I need to analyze and see with a clear head who I think is the most scummy at this point. But in my mind Cy has at least proven my reasons for voting for him in the first place false.

Unvote: Sir Cyanide

[ConfidAnon]

Confidanon-why is Cacautiosness a bad thing? And early in your post (118) you say that your vote on Jack stays but later in that same post you unvote Jack and vote TQO. Can you please explain this and what is your opinion on cyanide?

Cautiousness is not a bad thing in and of itself. However, when scum try to look town, they often overcompensate and appear overly cautious, like I believe your post appeared.

I write up my posts whilst reading the thread. The TQO post came chronologically after the Jack post. The TQO post is what caused me to change my vote.

Opinion on Cyanide is currently neutral. Abrasiveness is a nulltell, imo. Other than that, I have not seen anything particularly townie, or anything particularly scummy.